Bava Batra

And [the laws] taught here [are among those in which the claims relating to] a kethubah [are] weaker [than those of creditors]. We learned: R. Jose said: If she accepted, [explicitly]  although the husband did not put her [gift] in writing, she loses her kethubah.  [Does not] this is  imply that the first Tanna holds the opinion that both writing and her [explicit] acceptance are required?  And if it be suggested that the whole [Mishnah] represents [the view of] R. Jose,  surely, [it may be retorted,] it was taught: 'R. Judah said:  When [is it said that she lost her kethubah]? [Only] when she was there  and accepted [explicitly]  but if she was there and did not accept,  or accepted and was not there, she did not lose her kethubah.' [This, surely, is] a refutation  of [the views of] all [the previous explanations]!  It is a refutation. Raba said to R. Nahman: Here is [the explanation] of Rab, here [that of] Samuel, [and] here [that of] R. Jose the son of R. Hanina; what is the opinion of the Master? — He replied to him: It is my opinion that since he made her partner with the sons,  she lost her kethubah.  [The same] was also said [elsewhere]: R. Jose b. Manyumi said in the name of R. Nahman: Since he made her a partner with the sons she loses her kethubah. Raba enquired: What  [is the law] in [the case of] a person in good health?  Shall we say that this  is only in [the case of] a dying man since she knows that he has no more property  and [therefore by her acceptance] renounces her claims, but in [the case of] a person in good health  [we do not assume that she renounces her claim since] she might expect that he would again acquire [property];  or, perhaps, [in the latter case also she is assumed to renounce her claims since] now, at least, he has none?  — Let it stand. [Once] a certain [dying] man said to [his executors]; — 'A half  [shall be given] to [one] daughter [of mine], a half to [the other] daughter, and a third of the fruit to [my] wife'. R. Nahman, [who] happened to be [at that time] at Sura was visited by R. Hisda [who] inquired of him [as to] what [was the legal position] in such a case.  — He replied to him: Thus said Samuel, 'Even if he allotted to her one palm-tree for its usufruct  her kethubah is lost,'  [R. Hisda] asked him [again], 'is it not possible  that Samuel held this view  [only] there, where he allotted to her [a share] in the land itself  [but not] here, [where] only fruit  [was allotted]? — [R. Nahman] replied to him: '[Do] you speak of movable objects?  I certainly do not suggest [that the law quoted is to be applied to] moveables'. [Once] a certain [dying] man said to [his executors], 'a third [of my estate shall be given] to [one] daughter [of mine], a third to [the other] daughter, and a third to [my] wife'.  [Then] one of his daughters died.  R. Papi intended to give his decision [that the wife] receives only a third;