Ketubot 91a (צא.) — the Talmud in English

And here

what are we dealing with? With a case in which there was a surplus of one dinar in movable property, but not in real estate, and

they disagree with regard to a dinar of real estate—

that is, their dispute is whether that surplus of one dinar must specifically be in real estate or not.

The Master—

the first tanna—

holds:

a surplus of one dinar in

real estate—

is not

considered a “surplus of one dinar,” since it is comparable to the ketubbat benin dikhrin, which is collected only from real estate.

But a surplus of one dinar in

movable property is not [considered a surplus].

Since there is no dinar of real estate here, the sons of the first [wife] do not collect their mother’s ketuba by virtue of the ketubbat benin dikhrin; rather, only the sons of the second [wife] collect their mother’s ketuba.

And the Master—

Rabbi Shimon—

holds: Even

a dinar of

movable property

is considered a “surplus of one dinar.” Since there is a dinar of movable property here, these [sons] collect their mother’s ketuba, and those [sons] collect their mother’s ketuba.

And we refute this:

Can you really say this, that according to Rabbi Shimon a “surplus of one dinar” in movable property is sufficient?!

But didn’t we learn

explicitly

otherwise in the following Mishna:

For we learned:

Rabbi Shimon says: Even if there are unencumbered assets

[movable property],

they are nothing

to be considered a “surplus of one dinar,”

until there are assets that are encumbered—

one dinar—over and above the value of the two ketubot.

Rather, here

what are we dealing with? With a case in which there was a surplus of one dinar that was mortgaged to a creditor, and

they disagree with regard to a dinar mortgaged to creditors

as to whether it is considered a “surplus of one dinar.”

The Master—

the first tanna—

holds:

A dinar

from unencumbered property is not [sufficient].

It is indeed considered a “surplus of one dinar,” but a dinar

from property mortgaged to creditors is not [considered a surplus].

is not.

And the Master—

Rabbi Shimon—

holds: Even

a dinar

from property mortgaged to creditors

becomes a surplus.

And we refute this:

If so,

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

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

these [sons] collect their mother’s ketuba,” is imprecise. For

Rabbi Shimon should have said: “Since” there is a surplus of one dinar

!

Rather,

here what are we dealing with? With a case in which there was a surplus of less than one dinar beyond the two ketubot, and

they disagree with regard to less than one dinar

—whether that amount is sufficient to become a “surplus” and establish the law of the ketubbat benin dikhrin—

they disagree.

The Master—

the first tanna—

holds: One dinar is not [required?]

But

less than one dinar is not [sufficient].

Since there is only less than one dinar here, only the sons of the second [wife] collect their mother’s ketuba.

And the Master—

Rabbi Shimon—

holds: Even

with

less than one dinar

it is sufficient for the law of the ketubbat benin dikhrin to be fulfilled. Since there is any surplus whatsoever, that is sufficient. And we refute this:

But Rabbi Shimon said,

“If there is a surplus of

one dinar,”

that is what he

said. It follows that according to Rabbi Shimon less than one dinar is not sufficient?!

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

And if you would say:

In fact, here what are we dealing with? With a case in which there was a surplus of less than one dinar, and

reverse

the explanation of their dispute from what we had assumed until now, and this is their dispute:

If he married the first [wife] and she died, and then 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 assumed until now—come after his death and collect their mother’s ketuba by virtue of the ketubbat benin dikhrin, after the sons of the second [wife] collect their mother’s ketuba, because even a surplus of less than one dinar is sufficient.

Rabbi Shimon disagrees and says: If there is a surplus of “one dinar,” these [sons] collect their mother’s ketuba and those [sons] collect their mother’s ketuba; but if not—rather, there is less than one dinar—they divide the inheritance equally.

This cannot be said, because

the first tanna of the Mishna also says “one dinar”

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

Rather,

one must explain

as those first two formulations

[the two preceding explanations of their dispute], and

reverse

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

That is, the beraita can be explained in two ways:

The first: The case is one in which there was a surplus of one dinar in movable property, and the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon disagree whether this is sufficient to be considered a “surplus of one dinar.” According to the first tanna, it is sufficient, and the sons of the first [wife] collect their mother’s ketuba. According to Rabbi Shimon, a dinar of movable property is not sufficient [as he holds in the following Mishna]; therefore, only if there is a surplus of one dinar in real estate do both groups collect their mothers’ ketubot.

The second: The case is one in which there was a “surplus of one dinar” that was mortgaged to a creditor, and they disagree whether this is sufficient to be considered a “surplus of one dinar.”

Now there is no difficulty: Rabbi Shimon should have said, “Since there is a surplus of one dinar,” since Rabbi Shimon is saying that the sons of the first [wife] do not collect their mother’s ketuba in the case discussed by the beraita; only “if” there is a proper surplus of one dinar do the sons of the first [wife] collect their mother’s ketuba by virtue of the ketubbat benin dikhrin.

Mar Zutra said in the name of Rav Pappa:

The halakha is:

a.

One [wife] who died during his lifetime and one who died after his death have a “ketubbat benin dikhrin.”

b.

And one ketuba becomes a surplus for the other.

The Gemara is astonished:

Granted, if he teaches us

[this would be understandable if Mar Zutra had taught us only] that

“one [wife] who died during his lifetime and one who died after his death have a ketubbat benin dikhrin,” and

he had not taught us

[and Mar Zutra had not taught us] that the

ketuba

of the one who died after his death

becomes a surplus for the other.

Indeed, that alone would not have been sufficient, because

we might have said: If there is a surplus of one dinar

[only if there is a surplus of one dinar] apart from these two ketubot,

there is [a ketubbat benin dikhrin], and the sons of the one who died during his lifetime collect their mother’s ketuba. But

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 one dinar, only the second [wife’s] ketuba alone—

not [the first one]. Therefore, Mar Zutra had to teach us that “one ketuba becomes a surplus for the other,” and no additional “surplus of one dinar” is necessary.

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,

the difficulty is:

let him teach us

[let Mar Zutra teach us only] that

“one ketuba becomes a surplus for the other,”

and I would know

[I would know on my own]

because one [wife] who died during his lifetime and one who died after his death have a “ketubbat benin dikhrin”!

For you will never find one ketuba becoming 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 taught us this

that one ketuba becomes a surplus for the other, we would not have known that one [wife] who died during his lifetime and one after his death have a ketubbat benin dikhrin, because

we might have said

that it is in the following case that one ketuba becomes a surplus for the other:

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

and the sons of each of these two come to collect their mothers’ ketubot by virtue of the ketubbat benin dikhrin,

and

the

one

who

died after his death

has heirs who collect her ketuba like the other heirs of a creditor,

and the one who died after his death gave birth to a daughter, not a son entitled to inherit

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

In such a case, the ketuba of the one who died after his death becomes a “surplus of one dinar” for the two ketubot of those who died during his lifetime. There is no concern of “they will come to quarrel,” since this daughter, who inherits her mother’s ketuba, has no inheritance right at all; why would she resent the other sons who take by virtue of inheritance?

But

if he had two wives and

one died during his lifetime and one after his death

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

and the

one who died after his death gave birth to a son

who is also an heir,

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

[I would say: Let us be concerned that if the sons of the one who died during his lifetime collect their mother’s ketubbat benin dikhrin, the male sons of the one who died after his death will come to quarrel with the sons of the one who died during his lifetime, because they are taking an inheritance beyond their proportional share of the inheritance]. Therefore, the sons of the one who died during his lifetime would not collect the ketubbat benin dikhrin.

Therefore,

he teaches us

that one [wife] who died during his lifetime and one who died after his death have a ketubbat benin dikhrin!

Mishna:

The Mishna before us explains the law of a “surplus of one dinar,” which until now was mentioned only in the Gemara; the source of this law is the Mishna before us.

With regard to one who was married to two women,

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

and they died

both during his lifetime,

and afterward he died—

And the orphans

of the wife whose ketuba was larger

request their mother’s ketuba

by virtue of the ketubbat benin dikhrin,

and there is no

inheritance

except

enough for

the two ketubot—

they are not entitled to the ketubbat benin dikhrin; rather, the orphans of both women

divide it equally

according to the number of heirs. This is because the Sages did not institute the ketubbat benin dikhrin in a case where the Torah inheritance is completely negated by an equal division according to the number of heirs.

But if

there was

in the inheritance

“a surplus of one dinar,”

so that the Torah inheritance would be preserved through an equal division among the heirs—

These [orphans] collect their mother’s ketuba

the larger one,

and these

collect their mother’s ketuba

the smaller one, and they divide the remainder equally.

And even

if the

orphans

the sons of the wife whose ketuba was larger, when there was no “surplus of one dinar” in the inheritance, said:

“We value our father’s property at one dinar more favorably,”

that is, we raise the value of the property in order to accept it at a price one dinar above its actual value — and say this

so that they may collect their mother’s ketuba.

They do not heed them; rather, the property is 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 that were merely anticipated,

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 one dinar”—

they are not like property already in their possession,

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

Rabbi Shimon says:

Even

if

there is

a surplus of one dinar from

assets that have no lien of responsibility

[movable property],

it is nothing

to be considered a “surplus of one dinar,”

until there are assets that have a lien of responsibility

[real estate]

exceeding the two ketubot by one dinar,

for just as the ketubot are collected only from real estate, so too the surplus of one dinar must be from real estate.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

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

the one

had a ketuba for the sum of

one thousand

zuz,

and the other

had a ketuba for the sum of

five hundred

zuz.

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

And if not, they divide equally.

The Gemara says: The following ruling is

obvious,

and there is no reason to question it:

If the property was

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

but it

diminished before the court assessed the property—for example, because its value declined—

before the court assessed the estate—for example, because its value fell—

the heirs had already acquired it at the time of death, so that the sons of the woman with the larger ketuba were entitled to take their mother’s ketuba by virtue of the ketubat benei dikhrin, since at that time there was a “surplus of one dinar.”

at the time of death to take their mother’s marriage settlement by virtue of the sons’ inheritance provision in the marriage settlement, since at that time there was “an extra dinar.”

But in this case there is room for doubt:

If the property was

insufficient

at the time of death, before the court assessed the property,

and became abundant

before the court assessed it—for example, because the property increased in value, so that there was a “surplus of one dinar”—

what

is the ruling? Does the law of ketubat benei dikhrin apply?

Come and hear:

For the property of the house of bar Tzartzur [

the property of bar Tzartzur]—he died, and his sons sought ketubat benei dikhrin—

was insufficient and became abundant, and they came before Rav Amram—

He said to them

Rav Amram said to the heirs of the smaller ketuba:

Go and appease them—

the heirs of the larger ketuba; that is, give them their ketuba, since now the property is abundant and they are entitled to ketubat benei dikhrin.

But

they did not heed

the words of the heirs of the smaller ketuba.

He said to them

Rav Amram said to the heirs of the smaller ketuba:

If you do not appease them

as I instructed you,

I will strike you with a thorn that draws no blood [

I will strike you with a thorn that does not draw blood when it pierces the flesh]; that is, I will impose shemeta and excommunication upon you.

He sent them

Rav Amram sent them

before Rav Naḥman.