Bekhorot

NOR CAN A WOMAN CLAIM WITH HER KETHUBAH [FROM THESE],1 NOR CAN DAUGHTERS CLAIM THEIR SUPPORT,2 NOR CAN A LEVIR CLAIM.3 NONE OF THESE TAKE FROM THE IMPROVEMENT IN THE VALUE OF THE ESTATE, NOR OF WHAT WILL FALL TO THE ESTATE AS THEY DO OF WHAT IS NOW HELD IN POSSESSION. GEMARA. What is the reason? — Scripture say. The right of the first-born is his,4 [intimating] that the right of the first-born [is conferred] by a man5 but not by a woman. HE DOES NOT TAKE DOUBLE SHARE OF THE INCREASE IN VALUE because Scripture says: Of all that he hath.6 NOR DOES HE TAKE A DOUBLE SHARE OF WHAT WILL FALL DUE [TO THE ESTATE] AS HE DOES OF WHAT IS HELD IN POSSESSION, because Scripture says: Of all that he hath.7 NOR CAN A WOMAN CLAIM WITH HER KETHUBAH. Is it really so? Has not Samuel said: A creditor8 can claim also the improvement in the value of the estate? — Said R. Abba: They have taught here one of the concessions made in connection with the kethubah.9 NOR THE OBLIGATIONS OF SUPPORTING THE DAUGHTERS. What is the reason? — Stipulations in a kethubah are like the kethubah. 10 NOR A LEVIR. What is the reason? Scripture calls him a firstborn.11 Said Abaye: They have taught this12 only with regard to the improvement in the value of the estate between the death of the brother and the performance of the levirate marriage, but he does take a double share of the improvement of the value of the estate which took place between the period of the performance of the levirate marriage and the division of the estate. What is the reason? The Divine Law says: Shall succeed in the name of his brother that is dead;13 but here is a case of one who succeeded.14 Raba however says: He does not take the improvement in the brother's share even between the period of the performance of the levirate marriage and the dividing up of the estate. What is the reason? He has the same law as a first-born;15 as a first-born does not take [a double share of the improvement in the value of the estate] before the division, so a levir also does not take [a double share of the improvement] before the division. NONE OF THESE TAKE FROM THE IMPROVEMENT IN THE VALUE OF THE ESTATE. the alimentation can be taken only from the present value of the estate but not from what is to accrue to the estate after his death nor from any increment in the estate. marriage, cannot take the improvement in value from the dead brother's inheritance or from what accrued to the estate after the brother's death. the creditor can seize the whole estate including the improvement in the property. The woman also is here in the position of a creditor. cannot claim from land of average quality as is the case with a creditor but only claims from the worst land (B.K. 7b) and also that she must take an oath when claiming (v. Git. 34b), they also made a further concession by laying down that she cannot claim from the improvement in the estate which has taken place since her husband's death (R. Gershom). death, so it is with any undertaking set forth in the kethubah. being the duty of the eldest to perform the levirate marriage. Now since the law describes him as a first-born his case is on a par with that of a first-born who does not receive a double share of the increase in value of the estate, nor does the levir take two shares in what accrues to the estate after the brother's death. brother and is no longer called the first-born. Consequently the improvement in the estate took place in his possession and thus he takes two shares in the improvement of the estate.