Ketubot 90

אם גט קודם לכתובה גובה שתי כתובות כתובה קודמת לגט אינה גובה אלא כתובה אחת שהמגרש את אשתו והחזירה על מנת כתובה הראשונה החזירה

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.

מתני׳ קטן שהשיאו אביו כתובתה קיימת שעל מנת כן קיימה גר שנתגיירה אשתו עמו כתובתה קיימת שעל מנת כן קיימה

MISHNA: In the case of a minor who was married off by his father, the wife’s 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.

גמ׳ אמר רב הונא לא שנו אלא מנה מאתים אבל תוספת אין לה ורב יהודה אמר אפילו תוספת יש לה

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.

מיתיבי חידשו נוטלת מה שחידשו חידשו אין לא חידשו לא

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.

אימא אף מה שחידשו והא לא תני הכי חידשו נוטלת מה שחידשו לא חידשו בתולה גובה מאתים ואלמנה מנה תיובתא דרב יהודה

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.

רב יהודה מתניתין אטעיתיה הוא סבר כתובתה קיימת אכולה מילתא קאי ולא היא אעיקר כתובה קאי

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.

הדרן עלך הכותב לאשתו

מתני׳ מי שהיה נשוי שתי נשים ומת הראשונה קודמת לשניה ויורשי הראשונה קודמין ליורשי שניה

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.

נשא את הראשונה ומתה נשא שניה ומת הוא שניה ויורשיה קודמין ליורשי הראשונה

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’s marriage contract. Heirs receive their share of the estate only from property that remains after all debts have been settled.

גמ׳ מדקתני הראשונה קודמת לשניה ולא קתני הראשונה יש לה והשניה אין לה מכלל דאי קדמה שניה ותפסה לא מפקינן מינה

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.

שמע מינה בעל חוב מאוחר שקדם וגבה מה שגבה גבה

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.

לעולם אימא לך מה שגבה לא גבה ומאי קודמת לגמרי קתני כדתנן בן קודם לבת

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.

איכא דאמרי מדלא קתני אם קדמה שניה ותפסה אין מוציאין מידה מכלל דאי קדמה שניה ותפסה מפקינן מינה

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.

שמע מינה בעל חוב מאוחר שקדם וגבה מה שגבה לא גבה

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.

לעולם אימא לך מה שגבה גבה איידי דתנא שניה ויורשיה קודמין ליורשי הראשונה

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,

תנא נמי הראשונה קודמת לשניה

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.

נשא את הראשונה שמע מינה תלת שמע מינה אחת בחייו ואחת במותו יש להן כתובת בנין דכרין ולא חיישינן לאינצויי

§ 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’s 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.

ממאי מדקתני שניה ויורשיה קודמים ליורשי ראשונה מיקדם הוא דקדמי הא איכא שקלי

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.

ושמע מינה כתובה נעשית מותר לחברתה

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’s 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.

ממאי מדלא קתני אם יש שם מותר דינר

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.

ושמע מינה כתובת בנין דכרין לא טרפה ממשעבדי דאי סלקא דעתין טרפה ממשעבדי ליתו בני ראשונה ולטרפינהו לבני שניה

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’s 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.

מתקיף לה רב אשי ממאי דלמא לעולם אימא לך אחת בחייו ואחת במותו אין להן כתובת בנין דכרין ומאי קודמין לנחלה קתני

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’s marriage settlement. Rather, it is teaching that after the sons of the second wife receive the sum of their mother’s marriage settlement, the sons from both marriages inherit equal shares of the remaining estate.

וכי תימא יורשי הראשונה למה לי איידי דתנא שניה ויורשיה תנא נמי ליורשי הראשונה

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.

ודקאמרת כתובה נעשית מותר לחברתה דלמא לעולם אימא לך אין כתובה נעשית מותר לחברתה והכא הוא דאיכא מותר דינר

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.

ואחת בחייו ואחת במותו תנאי היא דתניא מתו אחת בחייו ואחת במותו בן ננס אומר יכולין בני הראשונה לומר לבני השניה בני בעלת חוב אתם טלו כתובת אמכם וצאו

§ 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’im if the sons of the wife who died in her husband’s lifetime are entitled to collect their mother’s 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’s marriage contract and leave, and we will inherit the rest of the estate due to the marriage contact concerning male children.

רבי עקיבא אומר כבר קפצה נחלה מלפני בני הראשונה ונפלה לפני בני השניה

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’s marriage settlement, the remainder of the estate is divided evenly between all the man’s sons.

מאי לאו בהא קא מיפלגי דמר סבר אחת בחייו ואחת במותו יש להן כתובת בנין דכרין ומר סבר אחת בחייו ואחת במותו אין להן כתובת בנין דכרין

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’s 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’s sons are not entitled to collect the marriage contract concerning male children.

אמר רבה אשכחתינהו לרבנן דבי רב דיתבי וקאמרי דכולי עלמא אחת בחייו ואחת במותו יש להן כתובת בנין דכרין והכא בכתובה נעשית מותר לחברתה והוא הדין לבעל חוב קמיפלגי

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’s 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.

מר סבר כתובה נעשית מותר לחברתה והוא הדין לבעל חוב ומר סבר אין כתובה נעשית מותר לחברתה והוא הדין לבעל חוב

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.

ואמינא להו אנא בבעל חוב כולי עלמא לא פליגי דהוי מותר כי פליגי בכתובה

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.

מתקיף לה רב יוסף אי הכי רבי עקיבא אומר כבר קפצה נחלה אם יש מותר דינר מיבעי ליה

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.

אלא אמר רב יוסף באחת בחייו ואחת במותו קא מיפלגי

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.

והני תנאי כי הני תנאי דתניא נשא את הראשונה ומתה נשא את השניה ומת הוא באין בניה של זו לאחר מיתה ונוטלין כתובת אמן רבי שמעון אומר אם יש מותר דינר אלו נוטלין כתובת אמן ואלו נוטלין כתובת אמן ואם לאו חולקין בשוה

And these tanna’im, ben Nanas and Rabbi Akiva, are like those other tanna’im, 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’s 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’s marriage contract, namely, the marriage contract concerning male offspring, and these sons of the second wife collect their mother’s marriage contract, and if not, they divide the entire estate equally among themselves.

מאי לאו בהא קא מיפלגי דמר סבר אחת בחייו ואחת במותו יש להן כתובת בנין דכרין ומר סבר אחת בחייו ואחת במותו אין להם כתובת בנין דכרין

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’s sons collect their mother’s marriage contract.

לא דכולי עלמא אחת בחייו ואחת במותו יש להן כתובת בנין דכרין

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,