Ketubot 81a (פא.) — the Talmud in English

His heirs –

those who are

the heirs to her marriage contract,

that is, the husband’s heirs,

are obligated to bury her.”

Abaye said: We too have learned this in the Mishna [

we too stated this law in the Mishna below (95b)] –

“A widow is sustained from the property of the orphans, and the proceeds of her labor belong to them, but they are not obligated to bury her.

And who is obligated to bury her?

Her heirs,

who are

the heirs to her marriage contract, are obligated to bury her.”

And

Abaye deduces:

Who is the widow who has two sets of heirs? [

That is, the heirs to her marriage contract are not the same as those who inherit her property.]

You must say that this is a widow awaiting levirate marriage.

And it is thereby proven that the obligation of burial rests upon the heirs to her marriage contract.

Rava said: But let him say [

why can the yavam not claim]:

“I inherit my brother; I do not bury his wife,”

that is, this marriage contract that I inherit contains none of the property that she brought from her father’s home, but only the two hundred dinars and the additional sum that my brother wrote for her; and I inherit only my brother, not her ?

Abaye said to him: Because both sides are brought against him:

whatever the case may be,

if

it is

his brother

whom he

inherits, he must bury his wife.

Just as his brother would have buried her had she died during his lifetime, even if she had brought him nothing.

And

if he does not bury his wife, he must give

her

marriage contract.

For her burial is in exchange for her marriage contract.

Rava said to him,

Rava:

This is what I am saying –

“I

inherit my brother; I do not bury his wife. And if you say this is because of the marriage contract—is a marriage contract given to be collected during the husband’s lifetime?”

That is, payment of a marriage contract cannot be claimed as long as the husband is alive; and since I stand in the husband’s place, her marriage contract cannot be claimed from me.

The Gemara answers Rava’s claim:

Who is the one from whom you hear that he holds by the exposition of the marriage contract [

who is the one who maintains that “a marriage contract is not given to be collected during the husband’s lifetime,” and expounds the wording of the marriage contract, which states, “When you marry another, you shall take what is written for you,” deriving that only when she is able to marry another, namely, upon the death of the husband or the yavam, may she collect her marriage contract, but it is not given to be collected during the husband’s lifetime]?

Beit Shammai.

In tractate Yevamot (117a), where they ruled that if she married another man, even on the basis of her own testimony, she collects her marriage contract .

And

on the other hand,

we hear from Beit Shammai that they say

that one who holds a promissory note against another is considered to be in possession of the other’s property more than the other himself, since

a document that stands to be collected is considered as though it had already been collected,

And where is this law taught?

As we learned

in tractate Sota: If a man warned his wife not to seclude herself with a particular man and she then secluded herself, and he took her to the court in order to have her drink and determine whether she had committed adultery while married to him, if she drank and it was determined that she had committed adultery, she forfeited her marriage contract. But if

her husbands died before

they drank, Beit Shammai say –

they collect their marriage contracts but do not drink. And Beit Hillel say –

either they drink or they do not collect their marriage contracts.”

But this is difficult: How could Beit Hillel say

“either they drink

or they do not collect their marriage contracts,” implying that they can drink after the husband’s death? Was it not stated in the Torah:

“And the man shall bring his wife to the priest,”

specifically when the man brings the woman?

The Merciful One said, and

in the case where he died,

he is absent; so how could Beit Hillel say, “either they drink”?

Rather,

it is evident that Beit Hillel intend to say:

Since they do not drink, they do not collect their marriage contracts.

The Gemara returns to discuss the statement of Beit Shammai:

“Beit Shammai say: They collect their marriage contracts but do not drink,”

And we ask:

But why

do they collect their marriage contracts? Is it not

a matter of uncertainty: perhaps she committed adultery and perhaps she did not commit adultery,

while the husband’s heirs are certainly in possession of the money of the marriage contract?

And

since

an uncertainty comes and takes money from one in certain possession?!

Rather, it is certainly the case that

Beit Shammai hold that the

document

of the marriage contract

that stands to be collected is considered as though it had already been collected.

Therefore, the woman is considered to be in possession of the money of her marriage contract .

Accordingly, Rava’s earlier question is resolved: Since a document that stands to be collected is considered as though it had already been collected, the brother cannot claim, “I inherit my brother,” because the money of the marriage contract is considered already collected by the woman. It is therefore as though he inherits the woman, and he is obligated to bury her.

And

we ask: Ultimately, how can the marriage contract be collected during the husband’s lifetime?

For we require,

according to Beit Shammai, that what is written in the marriage contract be fulfilled:

“When you marry another, you shall take what is written for you,” but that condition is absent,

since she has not yet been permitted to marry another?

Rav Ashi said: A yavam is also considered another man

for this purpose.

And since the husband died and she fell before the yavam, she has already acquired the money of her marriage contract, and the yavam is obligated to bury her in exchange for her marriage contract .

After Abaye had answered Rava that “the marriage contract is given to be collected during the yavam’s lifetime,”

Rava sent him

a letter

to Abaye, by the hand of Rav Shemaya bar Zeira,

and wrote to him as follows:

But who has said that a marriage contract may be collected during the lifetime

of a yavam?

And

indeed

it was taught

in a beraita:

Rabbi Abba said: I asked Sumakhos –

A yavam

who wishes to

be able to

sell his brother’s property

after he has married his yevama,

what does he do?

Ordinarily, he cannot sell his brother’s property, since it is liened to his wife’s marriage contract, as explained in the Mishna.

If he is a priest,

who cannot divorce his wife and then remarry her,

he should prepare

for her

a fine meal,

to entice her with a wine feast,

and appease

her, so that she will permit him to sell whatever exceeds the amount of her marriage contract.

And

if he is an Israelite, he divorces

her

with a get,

and gives her the money of her marriage contract, after which he may sell all the remaining property,

and

afterward

he remarries

her on the basis of her original marriage contract. This concludes the beraita.