💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Ketubot%2090a captured on 2024-05-10 at 12:35:52. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
1 [1] **if** the date of the **bill of divorce precedes** the date **of the marriage contract, she** collects payment for her **two marriage contracts.** She is entitled to the first marriage contract by virtue of the bill of divorce. She is entitled to the second one because she has shown that it was written for her when they remarried. If the date of the **marriage contract precedes** the date **of the bill of divorce, she collects** payment of **only one marriage contract.** This is because it is presumed **that one who divorces his wife and remarries her, remarries her with the intention** of using her **first marriage contract,** unless there is a reason to say otherwise.
[2] **MISHNA:** In the case of **a minor who was married** off **by his father,** the wife’s **marriage contract** that the minor wrote **is valid** even after the husband comes of age. He cannot excuse himself by saying that it was drafted when he was a minor, **as** it is **on this condition,** the terms of this marriage contract, that **he maintained her** as his wife upon his maturity. Similarly, in the case of **a convert whose wife converted with him,** the **marriage contract** that she had as a gentile **is valid, for on this condition he maintained her** as his wife.
[3] **GEMARA:** **Rav Huna said: They taught** that the wife of a minor or convert receives payment **only** with regard to the main sum of **one hundred dinars** or **two hundred** dinars. **However, she does not have** the right to receive the **additional** sum that he wrote in her marriage contract, because this document is not legally binding, as it was written by a minor. She receives the main sum only as a result of an ordinance instituted by the Sages. **And Rav Yehuda said: She has even** the **additional** sum.
[4] The Gemara **raises an objection** against the opinion of Rav Yehuda from a *baraita*: If a minor who came of age or a gentile who converted then **introduced** an additional sum to the marriage contract, **she takes** the additional sum **that they introduced.** The Gemara infers: **Yes,** the woman receives **what they introduced.** However, if **they did not introduce** an additional sum, she does **not** collect, even if it was written in the original marriage contract.
[5] The Gemara refutes this proof: **Say** that this means that she takes **even that which they introduced,** in addition to the entire amount of her original marriage contract. The Gemara asks: **But** the *tanna* **did not teach this,** and the continuation of the *baraita* states the opposite: If **they introduced** a new sum, **she takes** the additional sum **that which they introduced.** If **they did not introduce** a new sum, **a virgin collects two hundred** dinars **and a widow one hundred dinars.** She does not collect the additional sum listed in the marriage document. This provides **a conclusive refutation** of the statement **of Rav Yehuda,** whose opinion is rejected.
[6] The Gemara explains: **Rav Yehuda was misled by** the language of **the mishna** and reached an incorrect conclusion. **He thought** that the phrase: **Her marriage contract is valid, is referring to the entire matter,** the entire sum of the marriage contract. **But that is not so,** as it **is referring** only **to the main** sum of the marriage contract that was established by the Sages, and not to any additional sum.
[7] May we return to you chapter “One who writes to his wife.”
[8] **MISHNA:** In the case of **one who was married to two women and died, the first** woman he married **precedes the second** in collecting the payment specified in her marriage contract if there are insufficient funds to pay both, because her document is dated earlier. So too, if the wives died after their husband before they received payment for their marriage contracts, **the heirs of the first** wife **precede the heirs of the second** wife in collecting these payments.
[9] If **he married a first** woman **and she** subsequently **died,** and he then **married a second** woman **and he** subsequently **died, the second** wife **and her heirs precede the heirs of the first** wife. This is because the marriage contract of the second wife is considered a debt that the estate of the deceased is required to pay, whereas the claim of the heirs of the first wife is based on the stipulation in the marriage contract that male children inherit their mother’s marriage contract. Heirs receive their share of the estate only from property that remains after all debts have been settled.
[10] **GEMARA:** **From** the fact **that it teaches: The first** woman he married **precedes the second** in collecting the payment of her marriage contract, **and it does not teach** simply that **the first** woman **has** the right to receive payment of her marriage contract **and the second does not have** that right, the mishna thereby teaches **by inference that if the second preceded** the first **and seized** property in payment of her marriage contract, **we do not expropriate it from her,** because her rights to the property are not completely canceled.
[11] The Gemara suggests: **Learn from** the mishna the following principle: In the case of **a creditor** holding a promissory note dated **later** than the notes of other creditors **who preceded** the other creditors **and collected** his debt, **whatever he collected, he has collected,** and it is not expropriated from him even if the debtor does not have the means to pay back all his creditors.
[12] The Gemara rejects this conclusion: **Actually, I will say to you** that **what he collected, he has not collected,** i.e., he must restore the property to the debtor so that the latter can pay the other creditors. **And what** does the mishna mean when it teaches that the first wife **precedes** the second? It **teaches** that the first wife **completely** precedes the second and is granted exclusive rights to collect the payment of her marriage contract. **As we learned** in a mishna (*Bava Batra* 115a): **A son precedes a daughter** in matters of inheritance. Were she to come first and take part of the inheritance, it would not become hers; the son completely precedes her, so that in cases where there is a male heir, the daughter receives nothing. The same understanding of the word precedes applies in this matter as well.
[13] **There are** those **who say** that the discussion was as follows: **From the fact that it does not teach: If the second** wife **preceded** the first wife **and seized** property **it is not expropriated from her,** it proves **by inference that if the second** wife **preceded** the first **and seized** property as payment for her marriage contract, **we do appropriate it from her.**
[14] The Gemara suggests: **Learn from** the mishna the following rule: In the case of **a creditor** holding a promissory note dated **later** than the notes of other creditors **who preceded** the other creditors **and collected** his debt, **whatever he collected, he has not collected,** i.e., it is expropriated from him.
[15] The Gemara rejects this conclusion: **Actually, I will say to you** that **what** the later creditor **collected, he has collected,** but **since the mishna taught** later: **The second** wife **and her heirs precede the heirs of the first,** so that even if the heirs of the first wife seize property, they do not legally acquire it and it is expropriated from them, because they are collecting an inheritance rather than a debt,
Version:
License: