Ketubot 90a — the Talmud in English

We see:

if

the

get

was written

before the ketubah,

it follows that the second ketubah was written when he married her a second time, and

he collects two ketubot.

But if the

ketubah preceded the get, he collects only one ketubah,

because

one who divorces his wife and takes her back, takes her back on the basis of the first ketubah.

Mishna:

A minor whom his father married off,

and his father wrote a ketubah for his wife while he was a minor, and he grew up,

her ketubah remains valid.

Because

he retained her on this condition

when he reached majority.

And likewise,

a convert whose wife converted with him ,

and he wrote her a ketubah while he was a gentile—

her ketubah remains valid,

because

he retained her on this condition:

Gemara:

Rav Huna said: They taught

in our Mishna that he is obligated to give her a ketubah

only [the] maneh and two hundred,

which are stipulations of the court,

but an addition

that he wrote for her while he was a minor or while he was a gentile—

she does not have it,

since the document that he wrote for her while a minor is invalid .

And Rav Yehuda said: She has even the addition,

because he retained her on this condition.

And we raise an objection according to Rav Yehuda:

It was raised as an objection,

we learned in the Tosefta: A minor who reached majority and a convert who converted, who

renewed

[that is, they added to their ketubot when they reached majority or converted]—

she receives what they renewed.

And we infer:

If they renewed, yes! If they did not renew, no!

And this is difficult according to Rav Yehuda, who said that even without their renewing it she receives the addition of the ketubah.

And we answer:

Say,

let us interpret the intention of the Mishna as saying that she receives

even what they renewed.

And indeed, she also receives the addition, in accordance with the view of Rav Yehuda.

And we raise an objection:

But it did not teach this!

And certainly the intention of the Mishna is to say that specifically if they

renewed it, she receives what they renewed,

but if they

did not renew it—

a virgin collects two hundred, and a widow a maneh.

And we conclude:

A refutation of Rav Yehuda. [

Rav Yehuda’s words have been refuted.]

And the Gemara explains what caused Rav Yehuda to say his words—

Rav Yehuda was misled by the Mishna. He thought,

regarding that which the Mishna says

“her ketubah remains valid”—

it applies to the entire matter,

that is, also with regard to the addition.

But that is not so!

It applies only to

the principal of the ketubah,

but she does not have the addition that he wrote for her while he was a minor or while he was a gentile.

We will return to you, chapter “He Who Writes [a Ketubah] for His Wife.”

A. One who married a woman and died, and bequeathed landed property to his heirs, his wife takes her ketuba—which includes one hundred or two hundred [zuz] of the principal of the ketuba, as well as the addition that the husband wrote of his own accord, and also her dowry that she brought to him as “iron-flock property”—from those lands. And if she subsequently dies, her heirs acquire her ketuba, just as they acquire the other debts that were owed to her.

B. If his wife died before the husband died, he is not liable to her for a ketuba.

Rather, the Sages enacted that the woman’s dowry should be inherited only by her sons, after the death of their father, and not by the sons of another woman who was married to their father, even though regarding the other property the sons of all the wives inherit equally in all the property.

And this is what we learned in the Mishna above [52b]: If he did not write for her [in the ketuba], “Male sons that you will have from me, they shall inherit the money of your ketuba beyond their portion with their brothers [sons that you have from me, they shall inherit the money of your ketuba beyond their portion that they take with their brothers from another woman],” he is required to give it to them, for it is a stipulation of the court. And this is called “the ketuba of the male sons,” [and there in the Gemara the parameters of this enactment are explained].

And why did the Sages enact this? So that a person will leap forward and give his daughter as [much as] his son! That is, the woman’s father will agree to give a large dowry to his daughter, since he knows that when the time comes his daughter’s sons alone will inherit her dowry [which is included in the ketuba], and the sons of another woman will not participate in this inheritance, as explained above, 52b.

C. In our discussion it will be explained whether this enactment of the Sages applies specifically when both women died during his lifetime, so that the sons of each one have the right to “the ketuba of the male sons,” or even when one died during his lifetime, and only her sons come to take an amount corresponding to her ketuba by virtue of “the ketuba of the male sons,” whereas the second died after him, and her sons receive their mother’s ketuba as a debt, like the other debts that their mother bequeaths to them.

D. The nature of “the ketuba of the male sons” was disputed by the amoraim above, 55a:

There are those who say: “We learned: ‘they shall inherit’” [“Male sons that you will have from me, they shall inherit

‘they shall inherit’

the money of your ketuba], and the meaning of this definition is that they take their mother’s ketuba as an inheritance from their father and not as collection of a debt.

And there are those who say: “We learned: ‘they shall take’” [“They shall take

‘they shall take’

the money of your ketuba], and the meaning of this definition is that the male sons have a debt upon their father’s property, collected from the property that he left behind; and above, 55a, and in our discussion, the halakhic difference between the two definitions is explained.

E. The Sages limited the right of the woman’s sons to “the ketuba of the male sons,” so that there be in the inheritance a “surplus of a dinar,” divided equally among all the heirs according to the heads, and according to Torah law, as explained in the Mishna below, 91a. And the reason for the matter is so that the Torah law of inheritance should not be uprooted from the inheritance, as explained above [52b]. But if the ketubot of the two women corresponded to the entire sum of the inheritance, and not even one dinar remained there for equal division, neither these nor those take their mother’s ketuba; rather, they divide all the property equally. And this is called: “surplus of a dinar,” or “surplus.”

F. It will further be explained in our discussion what the law is regarding “the ketuba of the male sons” when that “surplus of a dinar” is mortgaged to a creditor, or is mortgaged to the sons of one of his wives for payment of her ketuba, who was alive at his death and to whom he became liable for a ketuba, whether this dinar can be considered a “surplus of a dinar.”

G. “The ketuba of the male sons” is collected only from land, and in the Mishna below, 91a, the tannaim disputed whether the surplus of the dinar must also be land, or even movable property.

Mishna:

One who was married to two women and died,

and both his wives claim their ketubot—

The

woman whom he married

first—

takes precedence over

the woman whom he married

second

to collect her ketuba. And if there is not enough in the property that the husband bequeathed for the two ketubot, the first collects her entire ketuba first, and the second takes her ketuba from what remains of the inheritance.

And

if his wives died after he died, before they managed to collect their ketubot—then

the heirs of

the first take precedence over the heirs of the second,

for the heirs of the first stand in her place.

He married the first, and she died

before he died, and her male sons have the right to inherit from him the amount of the dowry in her ketuba, in addition to their portion in the inheritance, by virtue of “the ketuba of the male sons”—

and again

he married

a woman

second and he died,

and he was liable to her for a ketuba —

then the

second and

also

her heirs [if the second subsequently died],

who come to collect the debt of the ketuba,

take precedence over the heirs of the first,

who come only by virtue of “the ketuba of the male sons.”

And the reason is that the heirs of the first come by the law of inheritance to collect the dowry in their mother’s ketuba, for “we learned: ‘they shall inherit’”—that is, “the ketuba of the male sons” is in the category of inheritance; whereas the second, or her heirs, since she was alive at the husband’s death, come by virtue of the obligation of the ketuba, and they are creditors and not heirs, and the heirs do not take for themselves until after they have discharged the father’s debts.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One who was married to two women and died, the first takes precedence over the second:

And the Gemara analyzes the wording of the Mishna, “the first takes precedence over the second”:

Since it teaches

the wording

“the first takes precedence over the second,”

which implies that initially she takes precedence to take before the second, if there is enough in the property for only one ketuba—

and it does not teach

the wording

“the first has, and the second has nothing,”

since there is here enough for only one ketuba, and this wording would imply that it is impossible for the second to take her ketuba—

by inference

you learn this:

if the second preceded and seized—

we do not take it away from her [if the second seized it, we do not remove it from her].

if the second seized property, we do not remove it from her].

Learn from it

from our Mishna: One who borrowed from two people, this one preceding that one, and he has only enough to repay one of them, the law is that the earlier creditor takes precedence over the later creditor. Nevertheless—

a later creditor who preceded and collected

before the earlier creditor—

what he collected, he collected,

and the earlier creditor cannot take it from him.

And we reject this:

I will always say to you

that a later creditor who preceded and collected,

what he collected—

he did not collect.

And what is “the

first

takes precedence

over the second” that we learned in our Mishna?—It teaches that she takes precedence

completely,

and the second has nothing.

And

as

in

as we learned wording of precedence, whose meaning is “completely,” in the Mishna in tractate Bava Batra:

for so we learned there:

A

son “takes precedence” over a daughter

to inherit his father’s property! And it is obvious that he takes precedence completely over the daughter, for even if the daughter seized it, we take it from her.

There are those who say

that one should infer the opposite from the wording of our Mishna:

Since it does not teach

in our Mishna:

“If the second preceded and seized, they do not take it from her,”

by inference

you learn this:

if the second preceded and seized—

we take it from her [we remove it from her].

we remove it from her].

And

learn from it: a later creditor who preceded and collected, what he collected—

he did not collect.

And we reject this:

I will always say to you:

a later creditor who preceded and collected,

what he collected—

he collected.

And regarding what is difficult to you, why did we not teach, “If the second preceded and seized, they do not take it from her,” I will say to you:

Since it taught

in the latter part of the Mishna, when the heirs of the first come by virtue of “the ketuba of the male sons,” whereas the heirs of the second have the law of creditors:

“the second and her heirs ‘take precedence’ over the heirs of the first,”

and it is impossible to teach there, “If the heirs of the first preceded and seized, they do not take it from them,” for certainly we take it from them, since this is the law of heirs: to pay from the lands that they inherited from their father the debts of their father—