Parallel
כתובות 90
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
she may. if the letter of divorce bears an earlier date than the kethubah, collect payment for two kethubahs, but if the kethubah bears an earlier date than the letter of divorce she may collect payment of one kethubah only, for any man who divorces his wife and then remarries her contracts his second marriage on the condition of the first kethubah. MISHNAH. [IN THE CASE OF] A MINOR WHOM HIS FATHER HAD GIVEN IN MARRIAGE, THE KETHUBAH OF HIS WIFE REMAINS VALID, SINCE IT IS ON THIS CONDITION THAT HE KEPT HER AS HIS WIFE. [IN THE CASE OF ONE WHO BECAME] A PROSELYTE AND HIS WIFE WITH HIM, THE KETHUBAH REMAINS VALID, SINCE IT IS ON THIS CONDITION THAT HE KEPT HER AS HIS WIFE. GEMARA. R. Huna stated: [The ruling of our Mishnah] was given only in respect of the maneh or the two hundred zuz; to the additional jointure, however, she is not entitled. Rab Judah, however, stated: She is entitled [to receive payment for] her additional jointure also. An objection was raised: If an additional monetary obligation was undertaken the woman receives that which was added. [Thus it follows, does it not, that] only if an additional monetary obligation was undertaken is the woman to receive any addition but if no such addition was made [she does] not [receive any addition at all]? — Read: 'Also that which had been added'. But surely, [in the following Baraitha] it was not taught so: 'If an additional monetary obligation was undertaken the woman receives that which was added, and if no additional monetary obligation was undertaken a virgin receives two hundred zuz and a widow receives a maneh'. Is not this then an objection against Rab Judah? — Rab Judah was misled by the wording of our Mishnah. He thought that the rule, 'THE KETHUBAH OF HIS WIFE REMAINS VALID', applied to the full amount; but in fact it is not so. It applies to the statutory kethubah alone. MISHNAH. IF A MAN WAS MARRIED TO TWO WIVES AND DIED, THE FIRST [WIFE] TAXES PRECEDENCE OVER THE SECOND, AND THE HEIRS OF THE FIRST WIFE TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE HEIRS OF THE SECOND. IF HE MARRIED A FIRST WIFE AND SHE DIED AND THEN HE MARRIED A SECOND WIFE AND HE HIMSELF DIED, THE SECOND WIFE AND HER HEIRS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE HEIRS OF THE FIRST WIFE. GEMARA. Since it was stated THE FIRST [WIFE] TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER THE SECOND but not 'The first wife receives payment and the second does not', it may be implied that if the second wife forestalled [the first] and seized [the payment of her kethubah] it cannot be taken away from her. May it then be inferred from this ruling that if a creditor of a later date has forestalled [one of an earlier date] and 'distrained [on the property of the debtor], his distraint is of legal Validity? In fact it may be maintained that his distraint is of no legal validity, and as to [the phrase] TAKES PRECEDENCE, It means complete [right of seizure]; as we have learned: A son takes precedence over a daughter. Some there are who say: Since it was not stated, 'If the second wife forestalled [the first] and seized [the payment of her kethubah] it is not to he taken away from her', it may be implied that even if she has seized payment it may be taken away from her. May it then be concluded that if a creditor of a later date has forestalled [one of an earlier date] and distrained [on the property of a debtor] his distraint is of no legal Validity? — In fact it may be maintained that his distraint is of legal validity, only because the Tanna stated, THE SECOND WIFE AND HER HEIRS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE HEIRS OF THE FIRST WIFE,
—
he also taught. THE FIRST WIFE TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER THE SECOND. IF A MAN MARRIED A FIRST WIFE. Three rulings may be inferred from this statement. It may be inferred that if one [wife died] during her husband's lifetime and the other after his death, [the sons of the former] are entitled to the kethubah of 'male children' and we do not apprehend any quarrelling. Whence is this inferred? Since it was stated, THE SECOND WIFE AND HER HEIRS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE HEIRS OF THE FIRST WIFE [it follows that] they are only entitled to precedence but that if there is [a balance, the others also] take [their share]. It may also be inferred that the kethubah [of the second wife] may be regarded as the surplus over the other. Whence is this inferred? Since it was not stated [that payment is made only] if a surplus of a denar remained there. Furthermore It may be inferred that a kethubah [claimed by virtue] of the 'male children' [clause] may not be distrained on mortgaged property; for if it could be imagined that it may be distrained on mortgaged property, the sons of the first wife should [be entitled to] come and distrain on [the property] of the sons of the second. To this R. Ashi demurred: Whence [these conclusions]? Might I not in fact maintain that if one [wife died] while her husband was alive, and the other after his death, [the sons of the former] are not entitled to the kethubah [that they claim by virtue] of the 'male children' clause, whilst the expression of TAKE PRECEDENCE might refer to the inheritance? And were you to retort: What was the object [of the description] THE HEIRS OF THE FIRST WIFE? [I might reply that] as the Tanna used the expression, THE SECOND WIFE AND HER HEIRS he also spoke of THE HEIRS OF THE FIRST WIFE! And with reference to your conclusion that 'the kethubah [of the second wife] may be regarded as a surplus over the other', might I not in fact still maintain that no kethubah may be regarded as a surplus over the other, but here it is a case where there was a surplus of a denar! [As to the case where] one [wife died] during her husband's lifetime and the other after his death, this is [a matter in dispute between] Tannaim. For it was taught: [If a man's wives] died, one during his lifetime and the other after his death, the sons of the first wife, Ben Nannus ruled, can say to the sons of the second, 'You are the sons of a creditor; take your mother's kethubah and go'. R. Akiba said: The inheritance has already been transferred from [the sole right of inheritance by] the sons of the first wife [the joint right of inheritance by these and] the sons of the second. Do they not differ on the following principle: One Master holds the Opinion that where one [wife died] during her husband's lifetime and the other after his death [the sons of the former] are entitled to the kethubah [of their mother by Virtue of the] 'male children' clause, and the other Master holds that where one [wife died] during a husband's lifetime and the other after his death [the sons of the former] are not entitled to the 'male children' kethubah? Said Rabbah: I found the young scholars of the academy while they were sitting [at their studies] and arguing: All [may hold the view that where] one [wife died] during her husband's lifetime and the other after his death [the sons of the former] are entitled to [their mother's] 'male children' kethubah, but here they differ [on the principle whether the second wife's] kethubah may be regarded as a surplus over the other; and the same dispute applies to [the debt] of a creditor. One Master holds that the [second wife's] kethubah is regarded as a surplus over the other, and the same law applies to [the debt] of a creditor, and the other Master holds that no one kethubah may be regarded as a surplus over the other, and the same law applies to [the debt] of a creditor. Thereupon I said to them: In respect of [a claim of] a creditor no ones disputes [the view] that [the debt] is regarded as a surplus; they only differ in respect of a kethubah. To this R. Joseph demurred: If so [instead of saying.] 'R. Akiba said: The inheritance has already been transferred' it should [have said.] 'If there is a surplus of a denar [the sons of the first wife receive their mother's kethubah].' [The fact]. however, is, said R. Joseph. that they differ [on the question whether the 'male children' kethubah is payable where] one [wife died] during her husband's lifetime and the other after his death. These Tannaim [differ on the same principle] as the following Tannaim. For it was taught: If a man married his first wife and she died and then he married his second wife and he himself died, the sons of this wife may come after [her] death and exact their mother's kethubah. R. Simeon ruled: If there is a surplus of one denar both receive the kethubahs of their mothers but if no [such surplus remains] they divide [the residue] in equal portions. Do they not differ on this principle: Whereas one Master holds that where one [wife died] during her husband's lifetime and the other after his death [the sons of the former] are entitled to the 'male children' kethubah, the other Master holds that where one [wife died] during her husband's lifetime and the other after his death [the children of the former] are not entitled to the 'male children' kethubah? No; all may agree that where one [wife died] during her husband's lifetime and the other after his death [the sons of the former] are to receive the 'male children' kethubah,
—