Ketubot 90a (צ.) — the Talmud in English

We see that:

if

the

get

was written

before the ketuba,

then the second ketuba was written when he married her again, and

she collects both ketubot.

However, if the

ketuba preceded the get, she collects only one ketuba,

because

when one divorces his wife and takes her back, he takes her back on the basis of the first ketuba.

Mishna:

A minor whom his father married off,

and whose father wrote a ketuba for his wife while he was a minor, and he came of age,

her ketuba remains valid.

Because

he maintained her on that condition

when he came of age.

Likewise,

a convert whose wife converted with him ,

and he wrote her a ketuba while he was still a gentile—

her ketuba remains valid,

because

he maintained her on that condition:

Gemara:

Rav Huna said: They taught

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

only with regard to one hundred or two hundred dinars,

which are stipulated by the court,

but the additional amount

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

she does not have it,

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

And Rav Yehuda said: She has even the additional amount,

since he maintained her on that condition.

And we challenge Rav Yehuda’s opinion:

Meytivi,

we learned in a Tosefta: A minor who came of age and a convert who converted, who

renewed [

that is, added to their ketubot when they came of age or converted]—

she collects what they renewed.

And we infer:

If they renewed it, yes; if they did not renew it, no!

And this is difficult according to Rav Yehuda, who said that even without renewing it she collects the additional amount of the ketuba.

And we answer:

Say

that we should interpret the intention of the Mishna as saying that she collects

even what they renewed.

Indeed, she also collects the additional amount, in accordance with Rav Yehuda’s opinion.

And we challenge this:

But it does not teach this,

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

renewed it, she collects what they renewed,

but if they

did not renew it—

a virgin collects two hundred dinars, and a widow one hundred.

And we conclude:

Tiyuvta of Rav Yehuda. [

Rav Yehuda’s words have been refuted.]

And the Gemara explains what caused Rav Yehuda to say what he did:

Rav Yehuda was misled by the Mishna. He thought

that when the Mishna said

“her ketuba remains valid,”

it applies to the entire matter,

that is, also with regard to the additional amount.

But that is not so! Rather,

only

the principal ketuba

is at issue; but she does not have the additional amount that he wrote for her while he was a minor or while he was still a gentile.

We have completed the chapter “One Who Writes a Ketuba for His Wife.”

1. If a man married a woman and died, leaving land to his heirs, his wife collects her ketubba from that land—which includes the one hundred or two hundred dinars of the principal of the ketubba, as well as the additional amount that the husband wrote for her of his own accord, and also her dowry, which she brought to him as nikhsei tzon barzel. If she subsequently dies, her heirs acquire her ketubba, just as they acquire the other debts owed to her.

2. If his wife died before the husband died, he is not obligated to pay her a ketubba.

Rather, the Sages instituted that the woman’s dowry is inherited only by her sons, after the death of their father; the sons of another woman who was married to their father do not inherit it, even though with regard to all other property, the sons of all the wives inherit all the property equally.

This is what we learned in the Mishna above [52b]: If he did not write for her in the ketubba, “The male children that you will have from me will inherit the money of your ketubba in addition to their share that they take with their brothers from another wife,” he must give it to them, as this is a condition of the court. This is called the ketubbat benin dikhrin [and there in the Gemara the parameters of this enactment are explained].

And why did the Sages institute this? So that a man will be eager to give his daughter a dowry equal to that which he gives his son. That is, the woman’s father will agree to give his daughter a large dowry, knowing that in due course his daughter’s sons alone will inherit her dowry [which is included in the ketubba], and the sons of another wife will not participate in this inheritance, as explained above, 52b.

3. 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 a ketubbat benin dikhrin, or whether it applies even when one woman died during his lifetime, and only her sons come to collect an amount equal to her ketubba by virtue of ketubbat benin dikhrin, while the other woman died after him, and her sons receive their mother’s ketubba as a debt, like the other debts that their mother bequeaths to them.

4. The amoraim above, on 55a, disputed the definition of ketubbat benin dikhrin:

Some say: “We learned yirtun” [“The male children that you will have from me will inherit”

“they will inherit”

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

And some say: “We learned yisavun” [“They will take”

“they will take”

the money of your ketubba]. The significance of this definition is that the male children have a debt claim against their father’s property, collected from the property that he left behind. Above, on 55a, and in our discussion, the halakhic difference between these two definitions is explained.

5. The Sages limited the sons’ right to ketubbat benin dikhrin: There must be a “surplus of one dinar” in the inheritance, which is divided equally among all the heirs, per capita, in accordance with Torah law, as explained in the Mishna below, 91a. The reason is so that the Torah law of inheritance should not be uprooted from the inheritance, as explained above [52b]. However, if the ketubbot of the two women equal the entire amount of the inheritance, so that not even one dinar remains for equal division, neither these nor those receive their mother’s ketubba. Rather, they divide all the property equally. This is called: “a surplus of one dinar,” or “a surplus.”

6. Our discussion will also explain the law of ketubbat benin dikhrin when this “surplus of one dinar” is liened to a creditor, or is liened to the sons of one of his wives for payment of her ketubba, since she was alive at his death and he became obligated to pay her a ketubba: whether this dinar can be considered a “surplus of one dinar.”

7. Ketubbat benin dikhrin is collected only from land. In the Mishna below, 91a, the tannaim dispute whether the surplus dinar must also be land, or whether it may even consist of movable property.

Mishna:

One who was married to two women and died,

and both of his wives demand payment of their ketubbot—

The

woman whom he married

first

takes precedence over

the woman whom he married

second

in collecting her ketubba. And if the property that the husband left his heirs is insufficient for both ketubbot, the first collects her entire ketubba first, and the second takes her ketubba from what remains of the inheritance.

And

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

the heirs of

the first take precedence over the heirs of the second,

as the heirs of the first stand in her place.

He married the first woman, and she died

before he died, and her male sons had the right to inherit from him the amount of the dowry in her ketubba, in addition to their share of the inheritance, by virtue of ketubbat benin dikhrin—

and again

he married

a woman

second and he died,

and he was obligated to pay her a ketubba —

then the

second woman and

likewise

her heirs

[if the second died afterward], who come to collect the debt of the ketubba,

take precedence over the heirs of the first,

who come only by virtue of ketubbat benin dikhrin.

The reason is that the heirs of the first come to collect the dowry in their mother’s ketubba by virtue of inheritance, as “they will inherit” was taught; that is, ketubbat benin dikhrin has the status of an inheritance. The second woman, or her heirs, however, since she was alive when the husband died, come by virtue of the obligation of the ketubba, and they are therefore creditors rather than heirs. Heirs do not take for themselves until they have paid 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:

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 indicates that ideally she takes precedence in collecting before the second, if the property is sufficient for only one ketubba—

and it did not teach

the wording

“the first has [a right to collect], and the second does not”,

since the property is sufficient for only one ketubba, and this wording would indicate that it is impossible for the second to collect her ketubba—

by inference

you learn this:

if the second preceded and seized—

we do not remove it from her

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

Conclude from it

from our Mishna: When one borrowed from two people, one of whom has priority over the other, and he has enough to repay only one of them, the law is that the earlier creditor takes precedence over the later creditor. Nevertheless—

if a later creditor 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 if a later creditor preceded and collected,

what he collected—

he did not collect.

And what

“the first”

takes precedence

over the second, which we learned in our Mishna? It teaches that she takes precedence

completely,

so that the second has nothing.

And

as

in the case of

as we learned

the expression of precedence, whose meaning is “completely,” in a Mishna in tractate Bava Batra:

For this is what we learned there:

A son “takes precedence” over a daughter

in inheriting his father’s property. Clearly, this means that he takes precedence over her completely, for even if the daughter seized the property, we would take it from her.

There are those who say

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

Since it did not teach

in our Mishna:

“If the second preceded and seized, we do not remove it from her,”

by inference

you learn this:

if the second preceded and seized—

we remove it from her

[we take it from her].

And

conclude from it: If a later creditor preceded and collected, what he collected—

he did not collect.

And we reject this:

I will always say to you:

if a later creditor preceded and collected,

what he collected—

he collected.

And regarding your difficulty as to why we did not learn, “If the second preceded and seized, we do not remove it from her,” I will say to you:

Since it taught

in the latter clause of the Mishna, where the heirs of the first come by virtue of ketubbat benin dikhrin, while the heirs of the second have the status of creditors:

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

and it would be impossible to state there, “If the heirs of the first preceded and seized, we do not remove it from them,” since certainly we remove it from them, because that is the law governing heirs: They must pay the father’s debts from the land that they inherited from their father—