Ketubot 90b — 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, they do not take it from her.

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 ketuba] take precedence over the heirs of the first [who collect “the ketuba of the male sons”]:

And the Gemara explains:

Learn from it

from our Mishna

three

three laws:

A.

Learn from it:

We do not say that “the ketuba of the male sons” is collected only when this right is granted to all the heirs, as when both women died before the husband’s death, so that these and those take “the ketuba of the male sons”—

Rather, even if only

one during his lifetime

died, so that only her sons have a right to inheritance according to the law of “the ketuba of the male sons,”

and

if one

woman

died

at his death [after the death of her husband],

whose heirs come to collect their mother’s ketuba by virtue of the father’s debt, and not by the law of the father’s inheritance—

they have

the heirs of the woman who died during his lifetime

“the ketuba of the male sons,”

which is inheritance,

and we are not concerned with quarrels [we are not concerned about a quarrel between the sons of the two women], lest the sons of the second woman say: You may not take in our father’s inheritance by virtue of the law of “heirs” more than we do.

we are not concerned that there will be a quarrel between the sons of the two wives], lest the sons of the second wife say: You may not take more from our father’s inheritance by virtue of the law of heirs 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 implies: If there is in the inheritance only enough for the ketuba of one, then the heirs of the second will collect their mother’s ketuba, and not the heirs of the first.

It is only

precedence that they have precedence,

a mere law of precedence for the heirs of the second when there is not enough in the property for the two ketubot;

but there is—

but if there is enough in the property for the ketubot of the two women—

they take [they take] the heirs of the first, by inheritance, an amount corresponding to their mother’s ketuba by virtue of “the ketuba of the male sons,” despite the fact that 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.

they receive] the heirs of the first, through inheritance, an amount corresponding to their mother’s ketubba by virtue of the “sons’ ketubba inheritance,” even though the heirs of the second are not entitled to this, and we are not concerned about conflict with the heirs of the wife who died when the husband died.

B.

And learn from it

further from what we learned: The second and her heirs take precedence over the heirs of the first, which implies: If there was enough in the property for the two ketubot, the heirs of the first will take “the ketuba of the male sons,” even though the Sages limited this enactment so that they may not take “the ketuba of the male sons” unless there is there a “surplus of a dinar” to maintain the Torah-law inheritance:

And from this you learn:

the ketuba

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—that is, for her ketuba of the male sons; meaning: Even if that “surplus of a dinar” is mortgaged to another woman’s ketuba, it is considered a “surplus of a dinar,” and the heirs of the dead woman are entitled to “the ketuba of the male sons.”

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.

And the reason for this is that the sons of the two women perform a mitzva with their inheritance by paying their father’s debt to the sons of the creditor whose ketuba it is, and this itself is their inheritance; and it follows that Torah-law inheritance and equal division among the heirs are fulfilled in that property collected by the heirs of the ketuba creditor.

And the Gemara explains:

from where,

from where do we infer from the Mishna that when there is in the property enough for only the two ketubot—the sons of the first receive “the ketuba of the male sons,” and it is not necessary that there be an additional dinar in the property beyond the two ketubot, so that Torah-law inheritance will be fulfilled through that dinar? For it is possible that even if there is enough in the property for both of them, the sons of the first take “the ketuba of the male sons” only if there is a surplus of a dinar beyond the two ketubot?

Since it does not teach

in our Mishna—which implies that if there is enough for the two ketubot, the sons of the first will take “the ketuba of the male sons”—that this law applies specifically:

“if there is there a surplus of a dinar.”

c.

C.

And learn from it

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

The ketuba of the male sons does not collect from encumbered property [one does not collect from encumbered property in the possession of others for “the ketuba of the male sons”], since the right of “the ketuba of the male sons” is inheritance [“we learned: ‘they shall inherit’”], and not a debt collected from encumbered property [“we learned: ‘they shall take’”].

it cannot be collected from liened property held by other people for the sake of the “sons’ ketubba inheritance”], since the right of the “sons’ ketubba inheritance” is an inheritance [“we learned the wording ‘shall inherit’”], and not a debt collected from liened property [“we learned the wording ‘shall take’”].

For if it enters your mind that “the ketuba of the male sons”

that ketubbat benin dikhrin

collects from encumbered property, because it is collected as a debt [“we learned: ‘they shall take’”] and not as inheritance, then

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

the sons of the first should come and collect from the sons of the second [the sons of the first should come and collect what the sons of the second collected],

for they are creditors, and their debt preceded the debt of the sons of the second.

Rav Ashi raised an objection against this:

From where ,

do you have grounds to prove all this from our Mishna!? For behold:

a.

Perhaps I will always say to you: one during his lifetime and one after his death do not have a ketubat benei dikhrin

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

And what

is this that we learned: “the second wife and her heirs”

“precede”

the heirs of the first, which implies mere precedence, but the right of the sons of the first has not been removed if property remains in the inheritance after the sons of the second have collected, and from this wording we came to prove that “one during his lifetime and one after his death” have a “ketubat benei dikhrin”—

not as you understood, that the sons of the second precede with regard to the “ketubat benei dikhrin” of the sons of the first, but the heirs of the second precede with regard

to the inheritance

of the heirs of the first,

it teaches

that if an inheritance remains after the heirs of the second have collected, even the heirs of the first will take, together with the heirs of the second, an equal inheritance from the remainder of the inheritance. But the law of “ketubat benei dikhrin” indeed does not apply here at all.

And if you would say

if the Mishna is not dealing with precedence for the “ketubat benei dikhrin,” but with the precedence of the second wife and her heirs over the inheritance of the heirs of the first, then there is no meaning at all in this matter to the fact that they are “heirs of the first,” 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, and if so: the second wife and her heirs precede

“the heirs of the first”—

why do I need this!?

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

that is: since with regard to the ketuba of the second wife we refer to her sons as “her heirs,” for through it they come to take her ketuba, so too with regard to the inheritance of the father’s heirs from the first wife we refer to them as “the heirs of the first,” even though their principal power in the inheritance is because they are heirs of the father alone.

Rav Ashi adds and raises an objection:

And as for what you said

to prove from our Mishna that

a ketuba becomes surplus for the other

because we did not explicitly teach in it that there is a surplus of one dinar—

perhaps I will always say to you: a ketuba does not become surplus for the other.

And here

there is a surplus of one dinar

[our Mishna is when there is a surplus of one dinar], and although this Mishna did not teach this here, it is taught below, 91a The Gemara explains:

And

the law of

one during his lifetime and one after his death,

whether the sons of this one who died during his lifetime have a “ketubat benei dikhrin,” or whether we are concerned that they will quarrel,

is a dispute among tannaim.

For it was taught:

One who was married to two women, and the ketuba of one was greater than that of the other, and

both

women died,

one—

the one whose ketuba was greater—

during his lifetime, and one—

the one whose ketuba was smaller—

after his death,

and the property contains no more than enough for the two ketubot:

Ben Nanas says: The sons of the first may say

[the one who died first]

to the sons of the second: You,

since

you are the sons of a creditor,

and you do not come to collect under the law of “ketubat benei dikhrin,” when you take the ketuba as a debt, a Torah inheritance is fulfilled through your ketuba, for both we and you are paying our father’s debt from the inheritance—

Therefore:

take your mother’s ketuba

the smaller one

and leave

the inheritance, for we will take the surplus of the inheritance under the law of “ketubat benei dikhrin,” since there is here a surplus of one dinar in the property that you collected for payment of your debt. [And see Rashi, who explained that this necessarily refers to a case in which there is no surplus of one dinar apart from the two ketubot].

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 “ketubat benei dikhrin,”

the inheritance sprang

for her

inheritance

from before the sons of the first

from being “the inheritance of the ketubat benei dikhrin” for them alone—

And it fell

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

before the sons of the second,

so that they too would take from it equally with the sons of the first [after the sons of the second collect their mother’s ketuba]; that is: the “ketubat benei dikhrin” was nullified here, since the heirs of the second do not acquire a “ketubat benei dikhrin.”

Is it not so,

does this not mean,

that this is what they dispute,

Ben Nanas and Rabbi Akiva?

For one

Ben Nanas

holds:

even

one during his lifetime and one after his death have a “ketubat benei dikhrin”

And the other—

Rabbi Akiva—

holds: one during his lifetime and one after his death do not have a “ketubat benei dikhrin,”

And this is what Rabbi Akiva said: Immediately at the time when the husband died during the lifetime of the second wife, and it became clear that the sons of the second would not acquire a “ketubat benei dikhrin,” the law of “ketubat benei dikhrin” was nullified here.

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

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

Everyone,

both according to Ben Nanas and according to Rabbi Akiva:

one during his lifetime and one after his death have

for the sons of the first

a “ketubat benei dikhrin,” and if there had been a “surplus of one dinar” beyond the two ketubot, indeed according to everyone the heirs of the first would have been entitled to a “ketubat benei dikhrin”—

But this beraita is dealing with a case in which there is no surplus of one dinar, since the sons of the first say to the sons of the second: “Take your mother’s ketuba and leave,” for you have no more inheritance to take, since we will take everything through our mother’s ketuba—

And here they dispute

whether a ketuba

is

made surplus for the other, and the same applies to

a surplus of one dinar liened to a

creditor,

whether it becomes surplus for the “ketubat benei dikhrin”—that is what they

dispute.

One—

Ben Nanas—

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

and since there is here a surplus of one dinar collected through the ketuba of the second, the sons of the first are entitled to a “ketubat benei dikhrin.”

And the other

Rabbi Akiva—

holds: a ketuba does not become 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 ketuba.

And this is what Rabbi Akiva said: Already at the time when the father died during the lifetime of the second wife, the surplus of his inheritance was to be given to the second woman through her ketuba, and it follows that the surplus of one dinar needed for the “ketubat benei dikhrin” is liened to the ketuba; therefore the sons of the first do not acquire a “ketubat 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 liened to a

creditor, everyone

—Ben Nanas and Rabbi Akiva—

does not dispute that it is surplus,

for even with that dinar that is paid to the creditor, a Torah inheritance is fulfilled, since both these and those perform a mitzva with it, to pay their father’s debt, and this is their inheritance.

They dispute

—Ben Nanas and Rabbi Akiva—only

with regard to a ketuba,

whether it becomes surplus, because the heirs, the sons of the second, themselves take the ketuba, and they are not paying a debt but taking by way of collection of a debt, and here there is no Torah inheritance divided equally among the heirs by way of inheritance.

Rav Yosef raised an objection to him

against the interpretation we explained for Rabbi Akiva’s reason, that it is because there is no surplus of one dinar here with which to fulfill a Torah inheritance:

If so,

this that we learned in the beraita,

“Rabbi Akiva says: Already the inheritance sprang,”

which implies that the law of “ketubat benei dikhrin” was nullified here, is not precise, for according to your words it is not so. For if there were a “surplus of one dinar,” even Rabbi Akiva would agree that the sons of the first are entitled to a “ketubat benei dikhrin,” and if so:

“If there is a surplus of one dinar

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

it should have said!?

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

and as we initially thought to explain their dispute, and if so, according to Rabbi Akiva, indeed “the inheritance already sprang” away from the sons of the first, and the law of “ketubat benei dikhrin” was nullified here.

And these tannaim—

Ben Nanas and Rabbi Akiva, who dispute the law of “one during his lifetime and one after his death”—

are like those tannaim

who also disputed this matter!

For it was taught:

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

[namely, “one during his lifetime and one after his death”]—

The sons of this one

the second

come after death

of their mother

and take their mother’s ketuba,

whereas the sons of the first are not entitled to a “ketubat benei dikhrin,” even if there was a surplus of one dinar beyond the two ketubot, but they divide the rest of the inheritance equally with the sons of the first [this is how we initially understood the interpretation].

Rabbi Shimon says:

Even the sons of the first are entitled to take an amount corresponding to their mother’s ketuba under the law of “ketubat benei dikhrin,” and therefore:

If there is a surplus of one dinar

beyond the two ketubot, then

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

And if not,

that there is no surplus of one dinar beyond the two ketubot, the sons of the first do not take an amount corresponding to their mother’s ketuba, but

divide

the sons of the two women

equally

all that remains after the sons of the second have collected their mother’s ketuba.

Is it not so that this is what they dispute:

For one—

Rabbi Shimon—

holds: one during his lifetime and one after his death have a “ketubat benei dikhrin.”

And he says:

the Tanna Kamma—

he holds: one during his lifetime

and one after his death, they do not have “a ketubah for male children”,

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

The Gemara rejects:

No,

not as you interpreted the dispute between the Tanna Kamma and Rabbi Shimon, that they disagree concerning the law of “one during his lifetime and one after his death,” and in accordance with the dispute of Ben Nannas and Rabbi Akiva!

Rather,

everyone—

the Tanna Kamma and Rabbi Shimon—holds that

one during his lifetime and one after his death have “a ketubah for male children”

when there is a surplus of a dinar there beyond the two ketubot.