Parallel
כתובות 91
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
but they differ here on [the question whether it is necessary for the surplus] denar to consist of real estate. The one Master holds that only real estate is regarded as a surplus but not movables and the other Master holds that even movables [are regarded as surplus]. But can you say so? Have we not learned, R. Simeon ruled: Even if there was movable property it is of no avail unless there was landed property [of the Value of] one denar more than [the total amount of] the two kethubahs? — [The fact,] however, is that they differ here on [the question whether] a denar of mortgaged property [is regarded as a surplus]. One Master holds that only free property constitutes a surplus but not mortgaged property, and the other Master holds that mortgaged property also [constitutes a surplus]. If so, [instead of stating,] 'R. Simeon ruled: If there is a surplus of one denar', should it not have been stated, 'Since there is a surplus of one denar'? — The fact, however, is that they differ on [the question whether a sum] less than a denar [constitutes a surplus]. One Master is of the opinion that only a denar constitutes a surplus but not a sum less than a denar, and the other Master holds that even less than a denar [constitutes a surplus]. But did not R. Simeon, however, say 'a denar'? And were you to reply. 'Reverse [their views]', does not the first Tanna of the Mishnah [it may be retorted] also speak of a denar? — The fact, however, [is that we must follow] on the lines of the first two explanations. and reverse [the views]. Mar Zutra stated in the name of R. Papa: The law [is 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, and that one kethubah is regarded as the surplus over the other. [Now] granted that if we had been told 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', but had not been told that 'one kethubah is regarded as the surplus over the other' it might have been presumed [that the former law applied] Only where the surplus amounted to a denar but not otherwise. [Why,] however, could we [not have] been informed [of the second law only, viz., that] 'one kethubah is regarded as the surplus over the other', and it would have been self-evident, [would it not, that this ruling was] due to [the law 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'? — If we were given the information in such a manner, [the law] might have been presumed [to apply to a case,] for instance, where a man had married three wives of whom two died during his lifetime and one after his death, and the last mentioned had given birth to a daughter who is not entitled to heirship. but [not to the case where] one [wife died] during her husband's lifetime and the other after his death and the latter had given birth to a son, [since in this case] the possibility of a quarrel might have to be taken into consideration, hence we were taught [that even in this case one kethubah is regarded as surplus over the other]. MISHNAH. IF A MAN WAS MARRIED TO TWO WIVES AND THEY DIED, AND SUBSEQUENTLY HE HIMSELF DIED, AND THE ORPHANS [OF ONE OF THE WIVES] CLAIM THEIR MOTHER'S KETHUBAH [BUT THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED HUSBAND] IS ONLY ENOUGH [FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF THE] TWO KETHUBAHS [ALL THE ORPHANS] RECEIVE EQUAL SHARES. IF THERE WAS A SURPLUS OF [A MINIMUM OF] ONE DEN A R, EACH GROUP OF SONS RECEIVE THE KETHUBAH OF THEIR MOTHER. IF THE ORPHANS [OF ONE OF THE WIVES] SAID, 'WE ARE OFFERING FOR OUR FATHER'S ESTATE ONE DEN AR MORE [THAN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE KETHUBAHS]', IN ORDER THAT THEY [MIGHT THEREBY BE ENABLED TO] TAKE THEIR MOTHER'S KETHUBAH THEIR REQUEST IS DISREGARDED AND THE ESTATE IS [PROPERLY] VALUED AT THE BETH DIN. IF THE ESTATE INCLUDED PROSPECTIVE PROPERTY, IT IS NOT [REGARDED] AS [PROPERTY HELD] IN ACTUAL POSSESSION. R. SIMEON RULED: EVEN IF THERE WAS MOVABLE PROPERTY IT IS OF NO AVAIL UNLESS THERE WAS LANDED PROPERTY [WORTH] ONE DENAR MORE THAN [ THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF] THE TWO KETHUBAHS. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: If one wife had [a kethubah for] a thousand [zuz] and the other for five hundred, each group of sons receive the kethubah of their mother provided a surplus of one denar was available; otherwise, they must divide the estate in equal proportions. It is obvious [that if the estate was] large and it depreciated, the heirs have already acquired ownership thereof. What, [however, is the ruling where the estate was] small and it appreciated? — Come and hear the case of the estate of the house of Bar Zarzur which was small and it appreciated, and when [the heirs] came [with their suit] before R. Amram he said to them, 'It is your duty to satisfy them'. As they disregarded [his ruling] he said to them, 'If you will not satisfy them I will chastise you with a thorn that causes no blood to flow'. Thereupon he sent them to R. Nahman, who said to them 'Just as [in the case where an estate was] large and it depreciated
—
the heirs have already acquired ownership thereof, so [also where the estate was] small and it appreciated the other heirs have already acquired ownership thereof. (Mnemonic: A thousand and a hundred duty in a kethubah, Jacob put up his fields by words [of] claimants.) A man against whom there was a claim of a thousand zuz had two mansions each of which he sold for five hundred zuz. The creditor thereupon came and distrained on one of them and then he was going to distrain on the other. [Whereupon the purchaser] took one thousand zuz, and went to [the creditor] and said to him, 'If [the one mansion] is worth to you one thousand zuz, well and good; but if not, take your thousand zuz and go'. Rami b. Hama [in dealing with the question] proposed that this case was exactly analogous to that in our Mishnah: IF THE ORPHANS [OF ONE OF THE WIVES] SAID, 'WE ARE OFFERING FOR OUR FATHER'S ESTATE ONE DENAR MORE'. But Raba said to him, 'Are the two cases at all alike? There the orphans would be suffering a loss, but here, does the creditor suffer any loss? He only advanced a thousand zuz and a thousand zuz he receives And for what amount is the tirpa made out? — Rabina said: For a thousand zuz. R. 'Awira said: For five hundred. And the law is [that the tirpa is made out] for five hundred. A certain man against whom someone had a claim for a hundred zuz had two small plots of land each of which he sold for fifty zuz. His creditor came and distrained on one of them and then he came again to distrain on the other. [The purchaser. thereupon.] took a hundred zuz and went to him and said, 'If [one of the plots] is worth a hundred zuz to you. well and good; but if not, take the one hundred zuz and go'. R. Joseph [in considering the question] proposed to say that this was a case exactly analogous to that in our Mishnah: IF THE ORPHANS [OF ONE OF THE WIVES] SAID etc. But Abaye said to him, 'Are the two cases at all alike? There the orphans would have suffered a loss, but here, what loss would [the creditor] have? He lent a hundred and receives a hundred'. For what amount is the tirpa made out? — Rabina said: For a hundred. R. 'Awira said: For fifty. And the law is [that it is made out] for fifty. A certain man against whom there was a claim for a hundred zuz died and left a small plot of land that was worth fifty zuz. As his creditor came and distrained on it the orphans went to him and handed to him fifty zuz. Thereupon he distrained on it again. When they came [with this action] before Abaye. he said to them, 'It is a moral duty incumbent upon orphans to pay the debt of their father. With the first payment you have performed a moral duty. and now that he has seized [the land again] his action is perfectly lawful', This ruling. however, applies only in the case where [the orphans] did not tell him, 'These fifty zuz are for the price of the small plot of land', but if they did tell him, 'these fifty zuz are for the price of the small plot of land', they have thereby entirely dismissed him, A certain man once sold the kethubah of his mother for a goodwill [price] and said to [the buyer], 'If mother comes and raises objections I shall not pay you any compensation'. His mother then died having raised no objections. but he himself came and objected. Rami b. Hama [in discussing the case] proposed to decide that he takes the place of his mother. Raba, however, said to him: Granted that he did not accept any responsibility for her action, did he not accept responsibility for his own action either? Rami b. Hama stated: If Reuben sold a field to Simeon without a guarantee and Simeon then re-sold it to Reuben with a guarantee
—