Ketubot — Daf 90a

אם גט קודם לכתובה גובה שתי כתובות כתובה קודמת לגט אינה גובה אלא כתובה אחת שהמגרש את אשתו והחזירה על מנת כתובה הראשונה החזירה:

מתני׳ קטן שהשיאו אביו כתובתה קיימת שע"מ כן קיימה גר שנתגיירה אשתו עמו כתובתה קיימת שעל מנת כן קיימה:

גמ׳ אמר רב הונא לא שנו אלא מנה מאתים אבל תוספת אין לה ורב יהודה אמר אפי' תוספת יש לה

מיתיבי חידשו נוטלת מה שחידשו חידשו אין לא חידשו לא

אימא אף מה שחידשו והא לא תני הכי חידשו נוטלת מה שחידשו לא חידשו בתולה גובה מאתים ואלמנה מנה תיובתא דרב יהודה

רב יהודה מתניתין אטעיתיה הוא סבר כתובתה קיימת אכולה מילתא קאי ולא היא אעיקר כתובה קאי:

הדרן עלך הכותב לאשתו

מתני׳ מי שהיה נשוי שתי נשים ומת הראשונה קודמת לשניה ויורשי הראשונה קודמין ליורשי שניה

נשא את הראשונה ומתה נשא שניה ומת הוא שניה ויורשיה קודמין ליורשי הראשונה:

גמ׳ מדקתני הראשונה קודמת לשניה ולא קתני הראשונה יש לה והשניה אין לה מכלל דאי קדמה שניה ותפסה לא מפקינן מינה

שמע מינה בעל חוב מאוחר שקדם וגבה מה שגבה גבה

לעולם אימא לך מה שגבה לא גבה ומאי קודמת לגמרי קתני כדתנן בן קודם לבת

איכא דאמרי מדלא קתני אם קדמה שניה ותפסה אין מוציאין מידה מכלל דאי קדמה שניה ותפסה מפקינן מינה

שמע מינה בעל חוב מאוחר שקדם וגבה מה שגבה לא גבה

לעולם אימא לך מה שגבה גבה איידי דתנא שניה ויורשיה קודמין ליורשי הראשונה

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,