Ketubot 91a — the Talmud in English

And here

what are we dealing with? For example, there was a surplus of a dinar from movable property and not from landed property, and

they disagree concerning a dinar of landed property,

that is to say: their disagreement is whether that surplus of a dinar must specifically be from landed property or not.

The master —

the First Tanna —

holds:

a surplus of a dinar from

landed property —

no,

indeed it is not considered a “surplus of a dinar,” since it is analogous to the “ketuba of the male children,” which is collected only from landed property.

But a surplus of a dinar from

movable property is not [considered a surplus],

and since there is no dinar of landed property here, the sons of the first [wife] do not take their mother’s ketuba by virtue of the “ketuba of the male children”; rather, only the sons of the second [wife] take their mother’s ketuba.

And the master —

Rabbi Shimon —

holds: even

a dinar of

movable property

is considered a “surplus of a dinar,” and since there is a dinar of movable property here, these take their mother’s ketuba and those take their mother’s ketuba.

And we refute it:

Can you really say this,

that according to Rabbi Shimon a “surplus of a dinar” from movable property suffices!?

But we learned

explicitly in the following Mishna not so:

For we learned:

Rabbi Shimon says: Even if there are there unguaranteed assets

[movable property],

they are nothing

to be considered a “surplus of a dinar,”

until there are there guaranteed assets in excess of the two ketubot

— a dinar.

Rather, here

what are we dealing with? For example, there was a surplus of a dinar that was mortgaged to a creditor, and

they disagree concerning a dinar from mortgaged property

whether it is considered a “surplus of a dinar.”

The master —

the First Tanna —

holds:

a dinar

from unencumbered property, yes,

indeed it is considered a “surplus of a dinar,” but a dinar

from mortgaged property, no.

is not.

And the master —

Rabbi Shimon —

holds: even

a dinar

from mortgaged property

becomes a surplus.

And we refute it:

If so,

that the beraita is dealing with a case in which there is a surplus of a dinar, but it is mortgaged, then that which we learned in the beraita,

“Rabbi Shimon says: If there is a surplus of a dinar

these take their mother’s ketuba,” is not precise, for

he should have said, “since there is a surplus of a dinar,”

Rabbi Shimon should have said!?

Rather,

here what are we dealing with? For example, there was a surplus of less than a dinar beyond the two ketubot, and

concerning less than a dinar

whether it suffices to become a “surplus” and to establish the law of the “ketuba of the male children”

they disagree.

The master —

the First Tanna —

holds: a dinar, no,

but

less than a dinar, no,

and since there is here only less than a dinar, therefore only the sons of the second [wife] take their mother’s ketuba.

And the master —

Rabbi Shimon —

holds: even

with

less than a dinar

it suffices for the law of the “ketuba of the male children” to be established, and since there is a surplus of any amount, that is sufficient. And we refute it:

But Rabbi Shimon

“if there is a surplus of

a dinar”

is what he

said,

so it follows that according to Rabbi Shimon less than a dinar is not sufficient!?

And if you would say:

Actually, here what are we dealing with? For example, there was a surplus of less than a dinar, and

reverse

the explanation of their disagreement from what we had thought until now, and this is how they disagree:

He married the first [wife] and she died; he married the second [wife] and he died; the sons of this one — that is, the sons of the first [wife], and not the sons of the second [wife], as we had thought until now — come after his death and take their mother’s ketuba by virtue of the “ketuba of the male children,” after the sons of the second [wife] take their mother’s ketuba, because even a surplus of less than a dinar suffices.

And Rabbi Shimon disagrees and says: If there is a surplus of “a dinar,” these take their mother’s ketuba and those take their mother’s ketuba; but if not — rather, there is less than a dinar — they divide equally.

It is impossible to say this, because

the First Tanna of the Mishna also says “a dinar”

in the following Mishna, as we learned: “If there was a surplus of a dinar, these take their mother’s ketuba and those take their mother’s ketuba, etc.; Rabbi Shimon says, etc.”!?

Rather,

it must be answered

as those first two formulations,

[like the two preceding formulations in the explanation of their disagreement],

and reverse

the explanation of the words of the First Tanna as we reversed them, as follows: According to his view, the sons of the first [wife] take their mother’s ketuba.

That is to say, there are two ways to explain the beraita:

The first: For example, there was a surplus of a dinar from movable property, and the First Tanna and Rabbi Shimon disagreed whether this suffices to be considered a “surplus of a dinar.” According to the First Tanna, this suffices, and the sons of the first [wife] collect their mother’s ketuba; whereas according to Rabbi Shimon, a dinar of movable property does not suffice [as he holds in the following Mishna], and therefore only if there is a surplus of a dinar from landed property do both groups take their mothers’ ketubot.

The second: For example, there was a “surplus of a dinar” mortgaged to a creditor, and they disagreed whether this suffices to be considered a “surplus of a dinar.”

And now there is no difficulty: Rabbi Shimon should have said, “since there is a surplus of a dinar,” for Rabbi Shimon came to say that the sons of the first [wife] do not take their mother’s ketuba in this case with which the beraita is dealing; only “if” there is a proper surplus of a dinar do the sons of the first [wife] take their mother’s ketuba by virtue of the “ketuba of the male children.”

Mar Zutra said in the name of Rav Pappa:

The halakha:

a.

One [wife] during his lifetime and one [wife] after his death have the “ketuba of the male children.”

b.

And one ketuba becomes a surplus for the other.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Granted, if he had informed us

[it would have been understandable if Mar Zutra had informed us only] that

“one during his lifetime and one after his death have the ketuba of the male children,”

and he had not informed us

[and Mar Zutra had not informed us] that the

ketuba

of the one who died after his death

becomes a surplus for the other.

Indeed, that would not have been sufficient, because

I might have said: If there is a surplus of a dinar

[only if there is a surplus of a dinar] besides these two ketubot,

no,

indeed the sons of the one who died during his lifetime collect the “ketuba of the male children”; but

if not

there is a surplus of a dinar, only the second [wife’s] ketuba alone —

not,

and therefore Mar Zutra had to inform us that “one ketuba becomes a surplus for the other”; another “surplus of a dinar” is not required.

Rather,

raise the following difficulty:

Let him inform us

[let Mar Zutra inform us only] that

“one ketuba becomes a surplus for the other,”

and I would know

[and I would know this on my own]

because one during his lifetime and one after his death have the “ketuba of the male children”!?

For you will not find that one ketuba becomes a surplus for the other except when one [wife] died during his lifetime and the other died after his death, and the ketuba of the one who died after his death becomes a surplus for the ketuba of the one who died during his lifetime.

And we answer:

If he had informed us this,

that “one ketuba becomes a surplus for the other,” we would not know that “one during his lifetime and one after his death” have the “ketuba of the male children,” because

I might have said

that this is the case in which one ketuba becomes a surplus for the other:

For example, he married three women, and two died during his lifetime,

and the sons of this one and that one come to take their mothers’ ketubot by virtue of the “ketuba of the male children,”

and

the

one

died

after his death,

and her heirs take their mother’s ketuba like the other heirs of a creditor,

and the one who died after his death gave birth to a female, and she is not an heir

[the one who died after his death had no male children, but rather gave birth to a daughter, and she is the one who comes to inherit her mother’s ketuba].

And in this case, the ketuba of the one who died after his death becomes a “surplus of a dinar” for the two ketubot of those who died during his lifetime, and there is no concern of “they will come to quarrel,” for this female who inherits her mother’s ketuba has no inheritance right at all, and why should she quarrel with the sons of the others, who take by virtue of inheritance?

But

if he had two wives and

one died during his lifetime and one after his death

[or he was married to three wives, and two died during his lifetime and one after his death],

and the one

who died after his death gave birth to a male,

who is also an heir,

I might say that we should be concerned that they will come to quarrel

[I might say: Let us be concerned lest, if the sons of the one who died during his lifetime take the “ketuba of the male children,” the male sons of the one who died after his death come to quarrel with the sons of the one who died during his lifetime, because they take an inheritance beyond their proportionate share of the inheritance], and therefore the sons of the one who died during his lifetime will not take the “ketuba of the male children.”

Therefore

he informs us

Mar Zutra that “one during his lifetime and one after his death have the ketuba of the male children”!

Mishna:

In the Mishna before us, the law of a “surplus of a dinar” is explained, which was mentioned until now only in the Gemara, and the source of the law is the Mishna before us.

One who was married to two women,

and the ketuba of one was larger than that of the other,

and they died,

the two women during his lifetime,

and afterward he died—

And the orphans

of the woman with the larger ketuba

request their mother’s ketuba

by virtue of the “ketuba of the male children,”

and there is no

inheritance

except

enough for

the two ketubot—

they are not entitled to the “ketuba of the male children”; rather, the orphans of the two women

divide equally

according to the number of persons; because the Sages did not institute the “ketuba of the male children” in a case where the Torah inheritance is completely nullified by an equal division according to the number of persons.

And if

there was

in the inheritance

“a surplus of a dinar,”

so that Torah inheritance can be maintained through an equal division among the heirs—

These take their mother’s ketuba

the larger one,

and these

take their mother’s ketuba

the smaller one, and they divide the remainder equally.

And even

if they said, the

orphans

the sons of the woman with the larger ketuba, when there was no “surplus of a dinar” in the inheritance:

“We value our father’s assets at a beautiful dinar,”

that is to say: We raise the value of the assets, to take them upon ourselves at a price one dinar higher than their worth — and say this

so that they may take their mother’s ketuba.

They do not heed them; rather, the assets are appraised in court,

and if according to this appraisal no dinar remains beyond the two ketubot, they divide the inheritance equally.

If there were

—beyond the two ketubot—

assets due to come,

assets that were destined to fall to them as an inheritance from their grandfather, and when this inheritance is added there will be a “surplus of a dinar”—

they are not like assets already in possession,

they are not considered as though they were already in the possession of the orphans at the time of death, so that they would be considered a “surplus of a dinar.”

Rabbi Shimon says:

Even

if

there is

a surplus of a dinar from

assets without guarantee

[movable property],

they are nothing

to be considered a “surplus of a dinar,”

until there are assets with guarantee

[landed property]

in excess of the two ketubot by a dinar,

for just as the ketubot are collected only from landed property, so too the surplus of the dinar must be from landed property.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

One who was married to two women, and they died, and afterward he died, and there was

for this one

a ketuba for the sum of

one thousand

zuz,

and for this one

the second one there was a ketuba for the sum of

five hundred

zuz.

If there is a surplus of a dinar, these take their mother’s ketuba, and these take their mother’s ketuba.

And if not, they divide equally.

The Gemara says: The following law is

obvious

and there is no need to be uncertain about it—

that if the assets were

abundant

at the time of death, and there was “a surplus of a dinar” — and

they diminished

before the court appraised the assets, for example, because their price fell —

the heirs had already acquired them

of the greater ketuba at the time of death, in order to take their mother’s ketuba by the law of ketubat banin dikhrin, for at that time there was “a surplus of a dinar.”

But concerning this there is room for uncertainty:

The assets were

few

at the time of death, before the court appraised the assets, and

they increased

until the court appraised them, for example, because the assets became more expensive, and there is “a surplus of a dinar”;

what

will be the law of ketubat banin dikhrin?

Come and hear:

For the assets of the household of bar Tzartzor [

the assets of bar Tzartzor] — he died, and his sons were requesting ketubat banin dikhrin —

they were few and increased, and they came before Rav Amram —

He said to them

Rav Amram said to the heirs of the lesser ketuba:

Go and appease them

to the heirs of the greater ketuba; that is, give them their ketuba, for now the assets are abundant and they have ketubat banin dikhrin.

But

they did not heed

the words of the heirs of the lesser ketuba.

He said to them

Rav Amram said to the heirs of the lesser ketuba:

If you do not appease them

as I commanded you,

I will strike you with a thorn that does not draw blood [

I will strike you with a thorn that does not emit blood when piercing the flesh], meaning: I will impose shamta and nidui upon you.

He sent them

Rav Amram sent them

before Rav Nahman.