💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Ketubot%2091a captured on 2024-05-10 at 12:50:23. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
1 ‎[1] **and here they disagree about a dinar’s worth** of **real estate:** One **Sage,** the first *tanna*, **holds** that if the surplus was in the form of **real estate,** meaning that there was sufficient real estate to cover the sums specified in the marriage contracts and one dinar’s worth of land was still left over, then **yes,** each can claim his mother’s marriage contract, but if the surplus of the dinar was only in **movable property,** then **no,** they cannot; **and** one **Sage,** Rabbi Shimon, **holds** that the heirs may claim the marriage contracts **even** if the surplus is in **movable property.**
‎[2] The Gemara asks: **But how can you say** that? **Didn’t we learn** in the mishna (91a) that **Rabbi Shimon says: Even if there is property that does not** serve as **a guarantee** for a loan, i.e., movable property, **it is considered as nothing, unless there is property that** serves as **a guarantee** for a loan with a promissory note, i.e., land, **exceeding the** value of the **two marriage contracts** by at least one additional **dinar.**
‎[3] **Rather, here they disagree about a dinar of liened** property: One **Sage,** the first *tanna*, **holds** that if the surplus was in the form of **unsold** property, then **yes,** each can claim the sum specified in his mother’s marriage contract, but if the surplus was only in **liened** property then **no,** he cannot. **And** one **Sage,** Rabbi Shimon, **holds** that it is deemed a surplus **even** if it was in the form of **liened** property.
‎[4] The Gemara asks: **If that is so,** the *baraita* should not have stated Rabbi Shimon’s opinion using the conditional: **Rabbi Shimon says: If there is a surplus of a dinar.** In this case such a surplus certainly exists, and therefore **it should have** said: **Since there is a surplus of a dinar.**
‎[5] **Rather,** the dispute can be explained differently: **They disagree about** a case where there is **less than a dinar** of surplus: One **Sage,** the first *tanna*, **holds** that if the surplus was worth **a dinar,** then **yes,** each can claim his mother’s marriage contract, but if it was **less than a dinar** then **no,** he cannot. **And** one **Sage,** Rabbi Shimon, **holds** that it is deemed a surplus **even** if it was **less than a dinar.**
‎[6] The Gemara asks: **But Rabbi Shimon said:** If there is a surplus of **a dinar,** and not less. **And if you would say: Reverse** the interpretation of the opinion of the first *tanna* in the *baraita* cited above, that would be unacceptable, because the **first *tanna* of the mishna** (91a), who is presumably identical to the first *tanna* of the *baraita*, **also said** that the surplus must be at least one **dinar.**
‎[7] The Gemara concludes: **Rather,** the dispute in the *baraita* must be explained **according to those first two formulations** cited above, that they disagree about a surplus in movable property or about a surplus in liened property. **And reverse** the interpretation of the opinion of the first *tanna*, so that he holds that the sons of the first wife may collect her marriage settlement if there is a surplus in their father’s estate of one dinar worth of movable property or liened property, whereas Rabbi Shimon holds that there must be a surplus of one dinar worth of land that is not liened.
‎[8] **Mar Zutra said in the name of Rav Pappa: The *halakha*** in the case where **one** wife died **in his lifetime and one** died following **his death** is that the sons of the first wife **are entitled to the** collect the **marriage contract concerning male children, and** furthermore, that one **marriage contract becomes surplus for the other.**
‎[9] The Gemara wonders: **Granted, if** Mar Zutra **would have taught us** only 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 he** would **not have taught us** that one **marriage contract becomes surplus for the other, I would say** that **if there is a surplus of a dinar** after the payment of both marriage settlements, then **yes,** the sons of the first wife can claim their mother’s marriage settlement, but **if not,** then **no,** they cannot.
‎[10] **However, let him teach us** only that one **marriage contract becomes surplus for the other, and I would know** that it is **due to** the fact that if **one** wife died **in his lifetime and one** died following **his death,** the sons of the first wife **are entitled to** claim payment of the **marriage contract concerning male children.**
‎[11] The Gemara answers: **If he** would have **taught us** only **that,** that a marriage contract can serve as a surplus, **I would say** that this applies specifically in a case **where** an individual **married three women, and two** of them **died in his lifetime and one** after **his death, and that** wife **who died** after **his death** had **given birth to a daughter** but no sons, **and the daughter does not inherit** any part of the estate. Although the daughter is entitled to be sustained from her father’s estate, she has no claim to a share in the inheritance. Consequently, there is no concern for quarreling, as all the heirs are in the same situation.
‎[12] **However,** in a case where **one** wife died **in his lifetime and one** died after **his death, where the one who** died **after his death** had **given birth to a son** who is suing for his portion of the estate, one could **say** that there is a **concern about quarreling** arising from the complaints of the son of the second wife. Therefore, Mar Zutra mentions both *halakhot* explicitly in order **to teach us** that this concern is not taken into account.
‎[13] **MISHNA:** In the case of **one who was married to two women and** the women **died, and subsequently he died, and the orphans** of one of the wives **are** now **seeking** to collect the payment specified in **their mother’s marriage contract,** i.e., the marriage contract concerning male children, **but there is only enough** in the estate to pay the value of the **two marriage contracts,** the marriage contract concerning male children cannot be collected, and the sons **distribute** the estate **equally** among themselves according to the biblical laws of inheritance.
‎[14] If **there was a surplus of a dinar** left **there,** in the estate, beyond the value of the two marriage contracts, then **these** sons **collect their mother’s marriage contract and those** sons **collect their mother’s marriage contract,** and the remaining property valued at a dinar is divided equally among all the sons.
‎[15] **If the orphans** who are entitled to receive the marriage settlement of greater value **say: We inflate** the value of **our father’s property by a dinar,** i.e., we agree to evaluate the property we will receive for our mother’s marriage settlement at a value higher than the market value so that there will be a dinar left in the estate after the two marriage contracts have been paid, **so that they can collect their mother’s marriage contract,** the court does **not listen to them. Rather,** the value of **the property is appraised in court,** and the distribution of the estate is based on that evaluation.
‎[16] If **there was potential** inheritance **there,** meaning that there was no surplus of a dinar in the existing properties of the estate, but there was property that was expected to be paid to the estate and which would increase the overall value of the estate so that there would be a surplus of a dinar after the payment of the marriage contracts, these properties **are not** considered to be **in** the **possession** of the estate in determining the total value of the estate.
‎[17] **Rabbi Shimon says: Even if there is property that does not** serve as **guarantee** for a loan, i.e., movable property, there in the estate, **it does not** have **any** impact on the value of the estate. The marriage contracts concerning male children are not collected **unless there is property that** serves as **a guarantee,** i.e., land, **exceeding the** value of the **two marriage contracts** by at least one additional **dinar.**
‎[18] **GEMARA:** **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: If **this** wife had a marriage contract valued at **one thousand** dinars and **that** wife had a marriage contract valued at **five hundred** dinars, **if there is a surplus of one dinar,** then **these** sons **collect their mother’s marriage contract and those** sons **collect their mother’s marriage contract. And if not, they divide** the inheritance **equally.**
‎[19] The Gemara notes: It **is obvious** that if there were **abundant** properties, i.e., there was a surplus of a dinar above the value of the two marriage settlements at the time of the man’s death, **but they depreciated** before the sons collected the marriage settlements, **the heirs have already acquired rights to** the marriage settlements. However, **what** is the *halakha* if the estate’s holdings were **few,** i.e., there was no surplus at the time of the man’s death, **but they appreciated** before the sons divided the estate, so that there was a surplus? Do the sons collect the mothers’ marriage settlements?
‎[20] The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a solution based upon the following case: The **properties of the house of bar Tzartzur** were **few,** i.e., there was no surplus beyond his wives’ marriage settlements, **and they appreciated.** The sons of the two wives **came before Rav Amram** to discuss the matter. **He said to** the sons of the wife who had the more valuable marriage contract: **Go appease** the sons of the other wife and give them some of your share. **They did not heed** his advice.
‎[21] **He said to them: If you will not appease them, I will strike you with a thorn [*silva*] that does not draw blood,** i.e., I will excommunicate you. **He sent them before Rav Naḥman.** Rav Naḥman **said to them: Just as** the *halakha* is that if the properties were **abundant but depreciated,**
Version: William Davidson Edition - English
Source: https://korenpub.com/collections/the-noe-edition-koren-talmud-bavli-1
License: CC-BY-NC