Ketubot 90b (צ:) — the Talmud in English

Therefore

it also taught

at the beginning:

“The first takes precedence over the second,”

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

We learned in the Mishna:

He married the first

and she died; he married the second and he died; the second and her heirs [who collect the debt of the ketubba] take precedence over the heirs of the first [who collect ketubbat benin dikhrin]:

The Gemara explains:

Conclude from it

from our Mishna

three

three halakhot:

a.

Conclude from it:

We do not say that ketubbat benin dikhrin is collected only when this right is granted to all the heirs, as when both women died before the husband’s death, in which case both these and those take ketubbat benin dikhrin—

Rather, even if only one died

during his lifetime,

so that only her sons have a right to inheritance under the law of ketubbat benin dikhrin,

and

the other woman

one

died

at his death

[after the death of her husband], so that her heirs come to collect their mother’s ketubba by virtue of the father’s debt, and not as an inheritance from the father—

they have

the heirs of the woman who died during his lifetime

“ketubbat benin dikhrin”

which is an inheritance,

and we are not concerned about quarrels

[we are not concerned that there will be a dispute between the sons of the two women], lest the sons of the second woman say: You may not take from our father’s inheritance by virtue of the law of “heirs” more than we do.

And the Gemara explains:

From where?

From where can this law be learned from our Mishna?

Since it teaches

in our Mishna:

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

which indicates that if the inheritance is sufficient for only one ketubba, the heirs of the second collect their mother’s ketubba, and not the heirs of the first.

It follows that only

their precedence is taught,

the mere rule of precedence given to the heirs of the second when the property is insufficient for both ketubbot;

but there is

something else: If the property is sufficient for the ketubbot of both women—

they take

[they receive], the heirs of the first inherit an amount corresponding to their mother’s ketubba by virtue of ketubbat benin dikhrin, even though the heirs of the second are not entitled to this, and we are not concerned about a quarrel with the heirs of the woman who died at his death.

b.

And conclude from it

further, from what we learned: “The second and her heirs take precedence over the heirs of the first,” which indicates that if the property is sufficient for both ketubbot, the heirs of the first receive ketubbat benin dikhrin, even though the Sages limited this enactment so that they receive ketubbat benin dikhrin only if there is a “surplus of one dinar” there, in order to preserve the Torah law of inheritance:

From this you learn:

The ketubba

of a woman who died after her husband, which is collected as a debt from the property of the father’s heirs,

becomes a “surplus” for her fellow

who is entitled to ketubbat benin dikhrin. That is, even if that “surplus of one dinar” is liened to the ketubba of another woman, it is considered a “surplus of one dinar,” and the heirs of the deceased woman are entitled to ketubbat benin dikhrin.

The reason is that the sons of both women perform a mitzva with their inheritance by paying their father’s debt to the sons of the creditor whose ketubba it is; that payment itself is their inheritance. It follows that the Torah law of inheritance and equal division among the heirs is fulfilled with regard to that property collected by the heirs of the creditor whose ketubba it is.

And the Gemara explains:

From where,

from where do we infer from the Mishna that when the property is sufficient for only both ketubbot, the sons of the first receive ketubbat benin dikhrin, and it is not necessary for there to be an additional dinar in the property beyond the two ketubbot, so that Torah inheritance will be fulfilled through that dinar? For it is possible that even if the property is sufficient for both of them, the sons of the first receive ketubbat benin dikhrin only if there is a surplus of one dinar beyond the two ketubbot?

Since it did not teach

in our Mishna—which indicates that if the property is sufficient for both ketubbot, the sons of the first receive ketubbat benin dikhrin—that this law applies specifically:

“If there is a surplus of one dinar.”

c.

C.

And conclude from it

further from our Mishna, in which we learned: The second and her heirs take precedence over the heirs of the first:

Ketubbat benin dikhrin cannot be collected from property that has been sold to others

[one cannot seize property encumbered by a lien and held by others for the sake of ketubbat benin dikhrin], since the right of ketubbat benin dikhrin is an inheritance [“we learned yirtun”], and not a debt collected from liened property [“we learned yisavun”].

For if it enters your mind

that ketubbat benin dikhrin

can be collected from property that has been sold to others,

because it is collected as a debt [“we learned yisavun”] and not as an inheritance, then

let the sons of the first come and seize from the sons of the second

[let the sons of the first come and seize what the sons of the second collected], since they are the sons of the first, and their debt preceded the debt of the sons of the second.

Rav Ashi raised an objection to this:

From where?

How do you know to prove all this from our Mishna!? Yet:

a.

Perhaps, actually, I can tell you: when one wife died during his lifetime and the other died after his death, their sons do not have a Ketubbat Benei Dikhrin

so that they will not come to quarrel with one another.

And what

is the meaning of what we learned: “The second wife and her heirs”

“precede”

“the heirs of the first,” which implies mere precedence, but that the rights of the sons of the first wife are not annulled if property remains in the inheritance after the sons of the second wife collect their due—and from this wording we came to prove that when one wife died during his lifetime and the other after his death, they have a Ketubbat Benei Dikhrin”—

Not as you understood it, that the sons of the second wife precede the sons of the first with regard to the Ketubbat Benei Dikhrin of the sons of the first, but rather the heirs of the second wife precede with regard

to the inheritance

of the heirs of the first,

it teaches

that if property remains in the inheritance after the heirs of the second collect their due, even the heirs of the first will inherit it together with the heirs of the second, in equal shares. But the law of Ketubbat Benei Dikhrin indeed does not apply here at all.

And if you would say

that if the Mishna is not dealing with precedence regarding the Ketubbat Benei Dikhrin, but with the precedence of the second wife and her heirs over the inheritance of the heirs of the first, then the fact that they are called “the heirs of the first” has no significance at all in this matter. For they do not come to inherit by virtue of being her sons, but by virtue of being the heirs of the deceased, who is the father alone. If so: The second wife and her heirs precede

“the heirs of the first”—

why do I need this designation!?

Since it taught: “The second wife and her heirs,” it also taught: “the heirs of the first,”

that is: Since with regard to the second wife’s ketubba we refer to her sons as “her heirs,” as they come by virtue of it to collect her ketubba, so too, with regard to the inheritance, we refer to the heirs of the father from the first wife as “the heirs of the first,” although their essential claim to the inheritance is based solely on their being the father’s heirs.

Rav Ashi adds and raises an objection:

And as for what you said

to prove from our Mishna that

one ketubba becomes the surplus for the other,

since we did not explicitly state that there is a surplus of one dinar—

perhaps, actually, I can tell you: one ketubba does not become the surplus for the other.

But here

there is a surplus of one dinar [

the case in our Mishna is when there is a surplus of one dinar]. Although this Mishna did not state this here, it is taught later, on page 91a: “ If there was a surplus of one dinar, these collect their mother’s ketubba, and these collect their mother’s ketubba.” The Gemara explains:

And

the law of

one wife who died during his lifetime and one who died after his death,

whether the sons of the one who died during his lifetime have a Ketubbat Benei Dikhrin, or whether we are concerned that they will quarrel, is

a dispute between tannaim.

As it was taught in a beraita:

One who was married to two women, and the ketubba of one was larger than that of the other, and

both

women

died—

the one whose ketubba was larger

during his lifetime, and the one

whose ketubba was smaller

after his death—and the estate contains no more than the amount of the two ketubbot:

Ben Nannas says: The sons of the first [

the one who died first]

can say to the sons of the second: “You,

since

you are the sons of a creditor,

and you are not coming to collect under the law of Ketubbat Benei Dikhrin, when you take the ketubba as a debt, a Torah inheritance is realized in your ketubba, for we and you are paying our father’s debt from the inheritance”—

Therefore:

“Take your mother’s ketubba

the smaller one

and leave

the inheritance, for we will take the surplus of the inheritance under the law of Ketubbat Benei Dikhrin, since there is here a surplus of one dinar in the property you collected as repayment of your debt.” [See Rashi, who explained that this necessarily refers to a case in which there is no surplus of one dinar beyond the two ketubbot.]

Rabbi Akiva says:

Already

at the time when the husband died during the lifetime of the second wife, and her sons would no longer collect a Ketubbat Benei Dikhrin,

the inheritance

was

assigned

away from the sons of the first

so that it would not be “the inheritance of the Ketubbat Benei Dikhrin” for them alone—

And it fell

to become a Torah inheritance, like any other inheritance, and even

before the sons of the second,

so that they too would take an equal share in it with the sons of the first [after the sons of the second collected their mother’s ketubba]. That is: The law of Ketubbat Benei Dikhrin was annulled here, since the heirs of the second do not receive a Ketubbat Benei Dikhrin.”

Is it not

the case that

they disagree about this:

Ben Nannas and Rabbi Akiva?

One

Ben Nannas

holds:

Even when one wife died during his lifetime and the other after his death,

they have a “Ketubbat Benei Dikhrin.”

And the other

Rabbi Akiva

holds: When one died during his lifetime and the other after his death, they do not have a “Ketubbat Benei Dikhrin,”

and this is what Rabbi Akiva said: As soon as the husband died during the lifetime of the second wife, and it became clear that the sons of the second would not receive a Ketubbat Benei Dikhrin, the law of Ketubbat Benei Dikhrin was annulled here.

Rabba said: I found the Sages of the academy of Rav sitting and saying [

I found the scholars of the yeshiva sitting and saying] to reject this interpretation of the beraita:

Everyone

both according to Ben Nannas and according to Rabbi Akiva:

when one died during his lifetime and the other after his death, they have

for the sons of the first

“a Ketubbat Benei Dikhrin,”

and had there been a surplus of one dinar beyond the two ketubbot, everyone would indeed agree that the heirs of the first were entitled to a Ketubbat Benei Dikhrin—

Rather, this beraita deals with a case in which there is no surplus of one dinar, as the sons of the first say to the sons of the second: “Take your mother’s ketubba and leave,” since you have nothing else to inherit, for we will take everything through our mother’s ketubba—

And here, with regard to the ketubba,

whether it

becomes the surplus for the other, and likewise whether

the surplus of one dinar encumbered to

a creditor

becomes surplus for the Ketubbat Benei Dikhrin, is what they

disagree about.

One

Ben Nannas

holds: A ketubba becomes the surplus for the other, and the same applies to a creditor;

and since there is here a surplus of one dinar collected through the second ketubba, the sons of the first are entitled to a Ketubbat Benei Dikhrin.”

And the other,

Rabbi Akiva,

holds: A ketubba does not become the surplus for the other, and the same applies to a creditor;

and since there is no other surplus of one dinar here, the sons of the first do not collect their mother’s ketubba.

This is what Rabbi Akiva meant: Already at the time when the father died during the lifetime of the second wife, the surplus of his inheritance would be given to the second wife through her ketubba. Thus, the surplus of one dinar required for the Ketubbat Benei Dikhrin was encumbered to the ketubba, and therefore the sons of the first do not receive a Ketubbat Benei Dikhrin.”

And I said to them [

and I, Rabba, said to them]—to the Sages of the academy of Rav:

With regard to

a surplus of one dinar encumbered to

a creditor, everyone

Ben Nannas and Rabbi Akiva

agrees that it is surplus,

because even with regard to that dinar that is paid to the creditor, a Torah inheritance is realized: Both these and those perform a mitzva by paying their father’s debt with it, and this is their inheritance.

They disagree

Ben Nannas and Rabbi Akiva—only

with regard to a ketubba,

whether it becomes surplus, because the heirs, the sons of the second, take the ketubba themselves. They are not paying a debt; rather, they are taking it by collecting a debt. Therefore, a Torah inheritance divided equally among the heirs as an inheritance is not realized here.

Rav Yosef raised an objection

to the interpretation we gave for Rabbi Akiva’s reasoning—that there is no surplus of one dinar with which to realize a Torah inheritance:

If so,

the wording that we learned in the beraita,

“Rabbi Akiva says: The inheritance was already assigned,”

which implies that the law of Ketubbat Benei Dikhrin was annulled here, is not precise. For according to your words, this is not so: Had there been a surplus of one dinar, even Rabbi Akiva would have agreed that the sons of the first were entitled to a Ketubbat Benei Dikhrin. If so, it

should have said: “If there is a surplus of one dinar,

they take, and if not, they do not take”—

should it not have said this!?

Rather, Rav Yosef said: They disagree with regard to one who died during his lifetime and one who died after his death,

as we initially thought when explaining the dispute between Ben Nannas and Rabbi Akiva. If so, according to Rabbi Akiva, the inheritance was indeed already assigned away from the sons of the first, and the law of Ketubbat Benei Dikhrin was annulled here.

And these tannaim

Ben Nannas and Rabbi Akiva, who disagree concerning the law of “one who died during his lifetime and one who died after his death”—

are like those tannaim

who likewise disagreed about this matter!

As it was taught in a beraita:

He married the first woman and she died; he married the second and he died, [

that is, “one during his lifetime and one after his death”]—

The sons of this one

the second

come after the death

of their mother

and collect their mother’s ketubba,

whereas the sons of the first are not entitled to a Ketubbat Benei Dikhrin, even if there was a surplus of one dinar beyond the two ketubbot. Rather, they divide the remainder of the inheritance equally with the sons of the first. [This is the initial understanding of the beraita.]

Rabbi Shimon says:

The sons of the first are also entitled to take an amount corresponding to their mother’s ketubba under the law of Ketubbat Benei Dikhrin. Therefore:

If there is a surplus of one dinar

beyond the two ketubbot, then

these take their mother’s ketubba, and these take their mother’s ketubba.

And if not,

if there is no surplus of one dinar beyond the two ketubbot, the sons of the first do not take an amount corresponding to their mother’s ketubba. Rather,

they divide

the sons of the two women

equally

everything that remains after the sons of the second collect their mother’s ketubba.

Is it not the case that they disagree about this:

One

Rabbi Shimon

holds: When one died during his lifetime and one after his death, they have a “Ketubbat Benei Dikhrin.”

And [the tanna kamma] says -

the tanna kamma -

holds: once during his lifetime

and once after his death, they do not have a “ketubbat benei dikhrin”—

and therefore, even if there is a surplus of one dinar, the sons of the first wife will not collect against their mother’s ketubba.

The Gemara rejects this:

No—

not as you explained the dispute between the tanna kamma and Rabbi Shimon, that they disagree concerning the law of “once during his lifetime and once after his death,” and in accordance with the dispute between Ben Nanas and Rabbi Akiva!

Rather,

everyone—

the tanna kamma and Rabbi Shimon—hold that

“once during his lifetime and once after his death, they have a ketubbat benei dikhrin”

when there is a surplus of one dinar beyond the two ketubbot".