💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Ketubot%2090b captured on 2024-05-10 at 12:43:24. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
1 ‎[1] **it taught** the first clause **as well** with the same wording: **The first** woman **precedes the second,** without elaborating that the property would not be expropriated from the second if she were to seize it in payment of her marriage contract.
‎[2] § The mishna taught: If **he married the first** woman, etc. The Gemara notes: **Conclude three** conclusions **from this** statement: **Conclude from it** that if **one** of the man’s wives died **in his lifetime and** the other **one** died following **his death,** then the sons of the first wife **are entitled to** collect the **marriage contract concerning male children and we are not concerned** that this would lead to **quarreling.**
‎[3] The Gemara asks: **From where** is it known that this is correct? **From** the fact **that it teaches:** The **second** wife **and her heirs precede the heirs of the first** wife, it can be inferred that **they precede** the heirs of the first, **but** if **there are** enough funds in the estate for all the claims against it, then the children of the first wife do **take** their share of the dowry.
‎[4] The second point one can **conclude from it is** that **one marriage contract becomes surplus for the other.** The Sages ruled that each son may claim his mother’s marriage settlement only when the value of the estate exceeds the sum total of the marriage contracts by at least one dinar, so that the biblical laws of inheritance can be fulfilled. Since the marriage settlement collected by the heirs of the second wife is considered a debt owed by the estate, this sum is considered to have been paid equally by all the heirs. The biblical laws of inheritance have thereby been fulfilled, and the sons of the first wife can claim the marriage contract concerning male children even if nothing will be left in the estate after they have collected their payment.
‎[5] The Gemara asks: **From where** is it known that this is correct? The Gemara answers: **From** the fact **that it does not teach** in the mishna: **If there is a surplus of a dinar** in addition to the value of all the marriage contracts.
‎[6] **And conclude from it** a third point, that when one collects the payment for **the marriage contract concerning male children, he cannot seize liened** property that his father sold to others, as one can when collecting a debt. **As, if it should enter your mind that it can be repossessed from liened** property, then **let the sons of the first** wife **come and repossess** land already claimed **by the sons of the second** wife as payment for their mother’s marriage contract, since the land the sons of the second wife took was previously liened, due to the marriage contract of the first wife. Rather, the children of the first wife are viewed not as creditors but as heirs, who cannot repossess property sold by their father.
‎[7] **Rav Ashi objects to** two of the three conclusions stated above: **From where** is it known that all of this is correct? **Perhaps I** could **actually say to you** that if **one** wife died **in his lifetime and one** died following **his death,** then **no one is entitled to** collect the **marriage contract concerning male children. And what does** the mishna mean when it says **precede?** It does not mean that if there are enough assets remaining, the sons of the first wife receive the sum of their mother’s marriage settlement. Rather, **it is teaching** that after the sons of the second wife receive the sum of their mother’s marriage settlement, the sons from both marriages **inherit** equal shares of the remaining estate.
‎[8] **And if you would say** that if the mishna is referring to the inheritance of the remainder of the estate, **why do I** need the mishna to mention **the heirs of the first** wife; since it is teaching a *halakha* concerning their inheritance from their father and not their inheritance from their mother, why refer to them as the heirs of the first wife? One could reply that **since it taught: The second** wife **and her heirs,** the mishna **also taught** the parallel phrase: **The heirs of the first** wife, but no halakhic conclusions should be drawn from this.
‎[9] **And concerning what you said** that **one marriage contract becomes surplus for the other,** this too can be rejected: **Perhaps I** could **actually say to you** that **one marriage contract does not become surplus for the other, and** that the case under discussion **here is where there is a surplus of** an additional **dinar,** and the reason why it was not explicitly mentioned is because it is not the subject of our mishna.
‎[10] § The Gemara notes that in a case where **one** wife died **in his lifetime and one** died following **his death,** there **is** a dispute between ***tanna’im*** if the sons of the wife who died in her husband’s lifetime are entitled to collect their mother’s marriage settlement. **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: If **they died, one in his lifetime and one** following **his death, ben Nanas says: The sons of the first** wife **can say to the sons of the second** wife: **You are the children of a creditor,** so **collect your mother’s marriage contract and leave,** and we will inherit the rest of the estate due to the marriage contract concerning male children.
‎[11] **Rabbi Akiva says:** When the husband died, the **inheritance already eluded the sons of the first** wife **and came into** the possession of **the sons of the second** wife as an inheritance, i.e., the Sages did not institute the marriage contract concerning male children in a case where one of the wives was alive when the husband died. Consequently, after the sons of the second wife collect their mother’s marriage settlement, the remainder of the estate is divided evenly between all the man’s sons.
‎[12] The Gemara comments: **What, is it not that they disagree about this: One Sage,** ben Nanas, **holds** that in a case where **one** wife died **in his lifetime and one** died following **his death,** the first wife’s sons **are entitled to** collect the **marriage contract concerning male children. And** the other **Sage,** Rabbi Akiva, **holds** that in a case where **one** wife died **in his lifetime and one** died following **his death,** the first wife’s sons **are not entitled to** collect the **marriage contract concerning male children.**
‎[13] **Rabba said: I found the Sages of the school of Rav sitting and saying: Everyone agrees** that in a case where **one** wife died **in his lifetime and one** died following **his death,** the first wife’s sons **are entitled to** collect the **marriage contract concerning male children. Here,** however, **they disagree with regard to** the question of whether or not one **marriage contract becomes surplus for the other** in a case where there is no surplus of an additional dinar with which to fulfill the biblical laws of inheritance. **And the same is true** with regard to payment made **to a creditor,** i.e., they disagree whether paying a creditor of their father is a sufficient fulfillment of the biblical laws of inheritance to allow collection of the marriage contract concerning male children.
‎[14] One **Sage,** ben Nanas, **holds** that one **marriage contract becomes surplus for the other, and the same is true** with regard to payment made **to a creditor, and** one **Sage,** Rabbi Akiva, **holds** that one **marriage contract does not become surplus for the other, and the same is true** with regard to the debt owed **to a creditor.**
‎[15] Rabba continues: **And I said to them: With regard to** payment made to **a creditor, everyone agrees that it is** considered **surplus** and fulfills the biblical laws of inheritance, even given the lien attached to it. **When they disagree** it is **with regard to** whether **a marriage contract** can be considered surplus.
‎[16] **Rav Yosef objects to this. If that is so,** then why did it say in the *baraita* that **Rabbi Akiva says: The inheritance already eluded** them? Rather, **it should have said: If there is a surplus of a dinar,** since that is the actual focal point of the disagreement.
‎[17] **Rather, Rav Yosef said: They disagree with regard to** the basic issue of whether the Sages instituted the marriage contract concerning male children in a case where **one** wife died **in his lifetime and one** died following **his death,** as was explained initially.
‎[18] **And these *tanna’im*,** ben Nanas and Rabbi Akiva, **are like those** other ***tanna’im*,** who debated this very same point, **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: If **he married a first** woman **and she** subsequently **died,** and he then **married a second** woman **and he** subsequently **died, the sons of this** woman, i.e., the second wife, **come after** her **death and collect** payment of **their mother’s marriage contract** if she did not collect it while she was alive, while the rest of the estate is distributed equally between all the sons. **Rabbi Shimon says: If there is a surplus of a dinar, these** sons of the first wife **collect their mother’s marriage contract,** namely, the marriage contract concerning male offspring, **and these** sons of the second wife **collect their mother’s marriage contract, and if not, they divide** the entire estate **equally** among themselves.
‎[19] **What, is it not** that **they disagree with regard to** the following: One **Sage,** Rabbi Shimon, **holds** that in a case where **one** wife died **in his lifetime and one** died following **his death,** the sons of the first wife **are entitled to** collect the **marriage contract concerning male children; and** one **Sage,** the first *tanna*, **holds** that in a case where **one** wife died **in his lifetime and one** died following **his death,** the sons of the first wife **are not entitled to** collect the **marriage contract concerning male children,** and only the second wife’s sons collect their mother’s marriage contract.
‎[20] The Gemara rejects this: **No,** it is possible to say that **everyone** agrees that in a case where **one** wife died **in his lifetime and one** died following **his death,** the sons of the first wife **are entitled to** collect the **marriage contract concerning male children,**
Version: William Davidson Edition - English
Source: https://korenpub.com/collections/the-noe-edition-koren-talmud-bavli-1
License: CC-BY-NC