Ketubot

Here also  [it may similarly be said:] This is the reason why she cannot distrain [for the additional jointure from the earlier date]: Since he did not write in her favour, 'I have added a hundred zuz to the two hundred'  she [having accepted the deed] must have renounced her former lien. The Master  has laid down that if she wishes she may distrain with the earlier kethubahs and if she prefers she may distrain with the later one.  Is it then to be assumed [that this ruling] differs from that of R. Nahman who laid down that if two deeds  were issued one after the other the latter cancels the former?  — [No, for] has it not been stated in connection with this statement that R. Papa said: R. Nahman nevertheless admits that if the man has added  one palm  the insertion was intended as an additional privilege?  And here also, Surely, [the husband] has added something. [To turn to] the original text.  R. Nahman laid down that if two deeds were issued one after the other the latter cancels the former. Said R. Papa: R. Nahman nevertheless admits that if the man has added one palm the insertion was intended as an additional privilege.  It is obvious [that the reason why both deeds are valid where] the first [was a deed] of sale and the second [a deed] of gift  [is because the action of the owner] was intended  to improve the other's rights,  as a safeguard against  the law of pre-emption;  and much more [is this  obvious where] the first was for a gift and the second for a sale, for it may then be presumed that the latter was written in that manner in order to safeguard the other against a creditor's rights.  [What], however, [is the reason why] the second cancels the first where both deeds  were for a sale or both for a gift? — Rafram replied: Because it may be presumed that [the holder of the deeds] has admitted to the other [the invalidity of the first deed].  R. Aha replied: Because it might be presumed that [the holder of the deeds] has surrendered his security of tenure.  What is the practical issue between them?  — The disqualification of the witnesses,  payment of compensation for unsufruct  and land tax. What is [the decision] in respect of the kethubah?  — Come and hear what Rab Judah laid down in the name of Samuel who had it from R. Eleazar the son of R. Simeon:  [The statutory kethubah of] a maneh  or two hundred zuz  [may be distrained for] from [the date of] the betrothal but the additional jointure only from the date of the marriage. The Sages, however, ruled: The one as well as the other [may be distrained for only] from the date of the marriage. The law is that the one as well as the other [may be distrained only] from the date of the marriage. MISHNAH. THE DAUGHTER OF A PROSELYTE WOMAN WHO BECAME A PROSELYTE TOGETHER WITH HER MOTHER  AND THEN  PLAYED THE HARLOT IS SUBJECT TO THE PENALTY  OF STRANGULATION,  BUT NOT TO  [STONING AT] THE DOOR OF HER FATHER'S HOUSE  NOR [DOES HER HUSBAND PAY THE] HUNDRED SELA'.  IF SHE WAS CONCEIVED IN UNHOLINESS  BUT HER BIRTH WAS IN HOLINESS  SHE IS SUBJECT TO THE PENALTY OF STONING BUT NOT TO  [THAT OF BRINGING HER OUT TO 'THE DOOR OF HER FATHER'S HOUSE', NOR [DOES HER HUSBAND PAY THE] HUNDRED SELA'. IF SHE WAS BOTH CONCEIVED AND BORN IN HOLINESS  SHE IS REGARDED AS A DAUGHTER OF ISRAEL IN ALL RESPECTS.  ONE  WHO HAD A FATHER BUT NO DOOR OF HER FATHER'S HOUSE',  OR A 'DOOR OF HER FATHER'S HOUSE' BUT NO FATHER, IS NEVERTHELESS SUBJECT TO THE PENALTY  OF STONING,  [FOR THE REGULATION, 'TO] THE DOOR OF HER FATHER'S HOUSE',  WAS ONLY INTENDED AS [AN INDEPENDENT] PRECEPT.