Ketubot 10

מִי שֶׁהָיָה נָשׂוּי שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים וּמֵת, הָרִאשׁוֹנָה קוֹדֶמֶת לַשְּׁנִיָּה, וְיוֹרְשֵׁי הָרִאשׁוֹנָה קוֹדְמִין לְיוֹרְשֵׁי שְׁנִיָּה. נָשָׂא אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וָמֵתָה, נָשָׂא שְׁנִיָּה וּמֵת הוּא, שְׁנִיָּה וְיוֹרְשֶׁיהָ קוֹדְמִים לְיוֹרְשֵׁי הָרִאשׁוֹנָה:

If a man were married to two women and he died, the first comes before the second (in collecting her kethubah), and the heirs of the first come before the heirs of the second [if his wives died after him before they had collected their kethubah.] If he married the first and she died, and then he married the second and he died, the second and her heirs come before the heirs of the first. [For she (the second) is a creditor, whereas the heirs of the first come to inherit from their father the kethubah of "the male sons," concerning which it is written (in the kethubah): "They shall inherit." For this reason the debt is paid first, and they inherit what is left. And it is only when the second swore (that she had not collected) the kethubah that she or her heirs take her kethubah. But if she had died after her husband and had not sworn, her heirs take nothing of her kethubah, the ruling being that "a man does not bequeath an oath to his sons"; that is, money which is acquired only by an oath. If he died before he swore, that money is not bequeathed to his sons.]

מִי שֶׁהָיָה נָשׂוּי שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים וּמֵתוּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת הוּא, וִיתוֹמִים מְבַקְשִׁים כְּתֻבַּת אִמָּן וְאֵין שָׁם אֶלָּא שְׁתֵּי כְתֻבּוֹת, חוֹלְקִין בְּשָׁוֶה. הָיָה שָׁם מוֹתַר דִּינָר, אֵלּוּ נוֹטְלִין כְּתֻבַּת אִמָּן וְאֵלּוּ נוֹטְלִין כְּתֻבַּת אִמָּן. אִם אָמְרוּ יְתוֹמִים, אֲנַחְנוּ מַעֲלִים עַל נִכְסֵי אָבִינוּ יָתֵר דִּינָר, כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּטְּלוּ כְתֻבַּת אִמָּן, אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לָהֶן, אֶלָּא שָׁמִין אֶת הַנְּכָסִים בְּבֵית דִּין:

If a man were married to two wives and they died. And then he died, and the orphans claim their mother's kethubah [ in an instance where the kethubah of one of them is larger than that of the other, and her sons (those of the first) say: We will take the "male-sons" kethubah, and you, likewise, and we shall divide the rest ], if (the amount of) only two kethuboth were there, they divide equally [as with all other inheritances, and they do not take the "male-sons" kethubah. If there were a surplus of a dinar, these take the kethubah of their mother, and those take the kethubah of their mother. If the orphans [ those with the larger kethubah] said: "We raise our father's property an additional dinar" in order to receive their mother's kethubah, they are not heeded. [ (If they said:) We raise its worth, accepting it as being worth more, (so that there be an additional dinar, enabling them to take their mother's kethubah) ], they are not heeded, but the property is appraised in beth-din.

הָיוּ שָׁם נְכָסִים בָּרָאוּי, אֵינָן כְּבַמֻּחְזָק. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, אֲפִלּוּ יֶשׁ שָׁם נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם אַחֲרָיוּת, אֵינוֹ כְלוּם, עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שָׁם נְכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן אַחֲרָיוּת יוֹתֵר עַל שְׁתֵּי הַכְּתֻבּוֹת דִּינָר:

If there were potential property [such as merchandise in the hands of others or a loan], it is not considered as "held." [It is not considered as if it were held in his (the father's) hand so that an "additional dinar" obtains. R. Shimon says: Even if there were unbound property [i.e., chattel] there, it is as naught — until there be bound property [land] worth a dinar more than the two kethuboth. [And the halachah is in accordance with R. Shimon. And even nowadays, when the chattel of orphans is held to be bound to the debtor, the "male-sons" kethubah obtains not with chattel, but with land.]

מִי שֶׁהָיָה נָשׂוּי שָׁלשׁ נָשִׁים וּמֵת, כְּתֻבָּתָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ מָנֶה וְשֶׁל זוֹ מָאתַיִם וְשֶׁל זוֹ שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת וְאֵין שָׁם אֶלָּא מָנֶה, חוֹלְקוֹת בְּשָׁוֶה. הָיוּ שָׁם מָאתַיִם, שֶׁל מָנֶה נוֹטֶלֶת חֲמִשִּׁים, שֶׁל מָאתַיִם וְשֶׁל שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת, שְׁלֹשָׁה שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁל זָהָב. הָיוּ שָׁם שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת, שֶׁל מָנֶה נוֹטֶלֶת חֲמִשִּׁים, וְשֶׁל מָאתַיִם, מָנֶה, וְשֶׁל שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת, שִׁשָּׁה שֶׁל זָהָב. וְכֵן שְׁלֹשָׁה שֶׁהִטִּילוּ לְכִיס, פִּחֲתוּ אוֹ הוֹתִירוּ, כָּךְ הֵן חוֹלְקִין:

If a man were married to three women, and he died — if the kethubah of one were a manah; of the other, two manah; and of the third, three manah, [and all three were signed on the same day (for if they were signed on three different days, the first signed is the first to collect. Or (the instance may be one) where he left only chattel, there being no law of precedence with chattel)], and there were only a manah (of property), they share equally. [For the "strength" of all is equal vis-à-vis the manah, all of them being owed (at least) a manah.] If there were two manah (of property) [Only one manah is bound to the manah kethubah; but not the second manah], the manah woman takes fifty, and the two and three manah women take three golden (dinars) apiece. [The gemara asks: She (the manah woman) should take one third of a manah (a hundred). How does she take fifty, which is half a manah! And it answers that our Mishnah speaks of an instance in which the two manah woman says to the one manah: I shall not contest the manah that is bound to you. Your share shall not be diminished because of me — for which reason she and the three manah woman divide it. And because the two manah woman did not give the one manah woman her share as a gift, but only said to her that she would not contest it with her and that her share would not be diminished because of her — after the one manah woman takes fifty, the rights of the two manah woman remain equal to those of the three manah woman in the remaining manah and a half, and each one takes three golden dinars, which are seventy-five silver dinars, each golden dinar being worth three silver ones.] If there were three manah (of property) [The first manah is bound to all of them; the second to the two manah woman alone], the manah woman takes fifty; the two manah woman, one manah; and the three manah woman, six golden dinars. [This, in an instance in which the three manah woman says to the one and two manah women: I shall not contest the (first) manah with you. Therefore, the first manah is divided between the two manah woman and the one manah woman, so that the one manah woman takes fifty, and the second manah is divided between the two and three manah women. The two manah woman, then, emerges with one manah — the fifty that she took from the division with the one manah woman, and the fifty from the second manah that she took from the division with the three manah woman. And the third manah is taken entirely by the three manah woman, so that she emerges with six golden dinars, which are a manah and a half — the entire third manah which remained for her, and the half-manah from the division with the two manah woman.] Likewise, if three put money into a "pocket" (i.e., a joint venture), and it diminished or increased in value, they divide in the same manner. [The gemara concludes that our Mishnah is in accordance with R. Nathan. But it is not the halachah, for Rebbi says: I do not agree with R. Nathan in this, but they all share equally. For since all of his property is bound to the kethubah, all three manah are bound to the one manah woman as they are to the others, until she collects all of her kethubah. Therefore, they share equally, the one manah woman taking as much as the two and three manah women. But with "three who put money into a pocket"; one, one manah; a second, two manah; and a third, three manah, in which instance they take in accordance with the appreciation of their money, it is just that each take in accordance with his money (input). And it is only when the money appreciates in and of itself (as when there is a currency change, its value increasing or decreasing) that the profit or loss is distributed according to the money (input itself); but if they bought merchandise with the money they put into the "pocket," and they profited or lost on the merchandise, this profit or loss is divided only according to the number of partners and not according to the money (input) — so that the one who invested little takes as much as the one who invested much, unless they stipulated beforehand to divide in proportion to the investment. And this is how it is adjudged in all of our courts.]

מִי שֶׁהָיָה נָשׂוּי אַרְבַּע נָשִׁים וּמֵת, הָרִאשׁוֹנָה קוֹדֶמֶת לַשְּׁנִיָּה, וּשְׁנִיָּה לַשְּׁלִישִׁית, וּשְׁלִישִׁית לָרְבִיעִית. הָרִאשׁוֹנָה נִשְׁבַּעַת לַשְּׁנִיָּה, וּשְׁנִיָּה לַשְּׁלִישִׁית, וּשְׁלִישִׁית לָרְבִיעִית, וְהָרְבִיעִית נִפְרַעַת שֶׁלֹּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. בֶּן נַנָּס אוֹמֵר, וְכִי מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא אַחֲרוֹנָה נִשְׂכֶּרֶת, אַף הִיא לֹא תִפָּרַע אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. הָיוּ יוֹצְאוֹת כֻּלָּן בְּיוֹם אֶחָד, כָּל הַקּוֹדֶמֶת לַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ אֲפִלּוּ שָׁעָה אַחַת, זָכְתָה. וְכָךְ הָיוּ כוֹתְבִין בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם שָׁעוֹת. הָיוּ כֻלָּן יוֹצְאוֹת בְּשָׁעָה אַחַת וְאֵין שָׁם אֶלָּא מָנֶה, חוֹלְקוֹת בְּשָׁוֶה:

If a man were married to four women, and he died, the first comes before the second; the second, before the third; and the third, before the fourth. [The one whose kethubah is dated earliest comes before the second, and so with all. The first swears to the second; the second, to the third; the third, to the fourth, and the fourth collects without an oath. [(The first swears to the second) if the second says to the first: Swear to me that you collected nothing from my husband (in his lifetime), for (if you did), there might not be enough left for me to collect my kethubah from. And, similarly, if the third says thus to the second, and the fourth to the third; but the fourth collects without swearing (in an instance where there is no heir or other creditor to make her swear)]. Ben Naness says: Now should she profit just because she is the last! She, too, collects only if she swears. [The gemara explains the difference between the first tanna and Ben Naness as applying to an instance where one of the fields received by the three first women was found not to belong to him (the husband), it having been discovered to have been stolen, so that in the end the owner will come and claim it. When the fourth woman comes to collect her kethubah from the fourth field, this one (the woman with the stolen field) comes and says to her: The owner of this stolen field is bound to come and take it from me; I want you to swear that you did not collect your kethubah in my husband's lifetime. The first tanna holds that if a later creditor were beforehand in collecting (before an earlier creditor), what he collected is not (validly) collected. Therefore, why should she swear? If the robbed one comes and seizes (his field) from this woman, she will go to the fourth one and take from her what she had collected, the fourth woman being a "later creditor." And Ben Naness holds that if a later creditor were beforehand in collecting, what he collected is (validly) collected, so that if she holds this field, the third woman cannot come to her (and claim it). Therefore, she swears to her that she had collected nothing from her husband's property. The halachah is in accordance with the first tanna. We infer, in any event, that if she seized chattel she must swear according to all, there being no law of precedence vis-à-vis chattel, and what she has collected is (validly) collected.] If all (of the kethuboth) were issued on the same day, if one is even one hour earlier than the other, that woman takes precedence (in collecting). And, in Jerusalem, they would, accordingly, write the hour (of the kethubah). If all were issued in the same hour, and there were only a manah (of property), they all share equally.

מִי שֶׁהָיָה נָשׂוּי שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים, וּמָכַר אֶת שָׂדֵהוּ, וְכָתְבָה רִאשׁוֹנָה לַלּוֹקֵחַ דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי עִמָּךְ, הַשְּׁנִיָּה מוֹצִיאָה מֵהַלּוֹקֵחַ, וְרִאשׁוֹנָה מִן הַשְּׁנִיָּה, וְהַלּוֹקֵחַ מִן הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, וְחוֹזְרוֹת חֲלִילָה עַד שֶׁיַּעֲשׂוּ פְשָׁרָה בֵינֵיהֶם. וְכֵן בַּעַל חוֹב. וְכֵן אִשָּׁה בַעֲלַת חוֹב:

If a man were married to two women, and he sold his field, and the first woman wrote to the buyer: "I shall not contest it with you," [in an instance where it (the field) was acquired from her hand — The gemara asks: Why can she not say: "I was just pleasing my husband" ("and I did not really mean it")? And it answers: We are speaking of an instance in which her husband sold this field to a different man before this one, and she refused to sign for him, whereas she agreed to sign for this one. For if it were merely a matter of pleasing her husband, she would have signed for the first, too.], the second takes it from the buyer; the first, from the second; and the buyer from the first; and so, all over again, until they reach a compromise among them. And, likewise, a creditor [and two buyers. If Reuven were owed a manah by Shimon, and he (Shimon) had two fields and sold them to two buyers, to each, for fifty (a half-manah), and Reuven wrote to the second buyer: "I shall not contest it with you," he takes it from the first buyer, who cannot say to him: "I left you a place to collect from," the debt embracing both, and the first buyer takes it from the second, and Reuven takes this, too, from the first, and the second buyer takes it from Reuven; and so, all over again, until they reach a compromise]; and, likewise, a woman creditor [a woman who was owed a kethubah by her husband, who sold two fields to two buyers, the two fields sufficing only for the amount of the kethubah. If she wrote to the second: "I shall not contest it with you," she takes it from the first buyer, and he, from the second, and she from the first, and the second, from the woman, and the first buyer from the second; and so, all over again.]