Si l'on écrit à sa femme: «Je n'ai rien à voir avec ta propriété», il mange des fruits de son vivant, et si elle meurt, il en hérite. [Si, alors qu'elle était encore fiancée, il lui écrivait: Quand tu me maries, je n'ai rien à voir avec tes biens—même s'ils (les destinataires) ne l'ont pas acquis de lui, elle peut le vendre et le donner en cadeau, et la transaction tient. Car un homme peut faire une condition pour ne pas hériter d'un héritage qui lui revient d'ailleurs. Et s'ils l'ont acquis de lui, même après le mariage, sa vente est valable. Mais il mange des fruits, et si elle meurt, il en hérite. Car c'est ce qui est sous-entendu, à savoir: "Je n'ai rien à voir avec votre propriété, mais j'ai quelque chose à voir avec ses fruits. Et tant que c'est votre propriété, (c'est-à-dire de votre vivant) je n'ai rien Mais après votre mort, j'ai «quelque chose à voir avec ça.»] Si oui, pourquoi lui écrit-il: «Je n'ai rien à voir avec votre propriété»? Alors que si elle l'a vendu ou l'a donné loin, il (la transaction) tient. S'il lui a écrit: "Je n'ai rien à voir avec votre propriété ou ses fruits", il ne mange pas de fruits de son vivant. Et si elle meurt, il en hérite. R. Yehudah dit : Il mange toujours des fruits de fruits, sauf s'il écrit: "Je n'ai rien à voir avec votre propriété, ou ses fruits, ou les fruits de ses fruits pour toujours." [La gemara explique quels sont les fruits et lesquels sont les fruits de fruits. Si elle lui a apporté la terre, et elle a produit des fruits—ce sont des fruits. S'il vendait ces fruits pour la terre, qui produisait des fruits—ce sont des fruits de fruits. S'il lui dit seulement: «Je n'ai rien à voir avec votre propriété ou ses fruits», il mange des fruits de fruits selon R. Yehudah; car il ne s'est "retiré" que des fruits. La halakha est conforme à R. Yehudah.] S'il lui a écrit: "Je n'ai rien à voir avec votre propriété, ou ses fruits, ou les fruits de ses fruits de votre vivant ou après votre mort", il ne mange pas de fruits de son vivant, et si elle meurt, il n'en hérite pas. R. Shimon n. Gamliel dit: Si elle meurt, il hérite d'elle; car il a fait une condition contraire à ce qui est écrit dans la Torah; et si l'on fait une condition contraire à ce qui est écrit dans la Torah, la condition est nulle. [Car il est écrit (Nombres 27:11): "Et il l'héritera"—d'où vient qu'un homme hérite de sa femme. Mais la conclusion est que l'héritage d'un homme de sa femme n'est pas un acte biblique mais un acte rabbinique et le verset (ci-dessus) ne sert que de support.—nonobstant le fait que la halakha est conforme à R. Shimon b. Gamliel. Non pas parce qu'il crée une condition contraire à ce qui est écrit dans la Torah, mais parce que les sages lui ont donné «la force de la Torah»].
Bartenura on Mishnah Ketubot
הכותב לאשתו דין ודברים אין לי בנכסיך – while she still is betrothed, he (i.e., the future husband) writes her: “When you marry me, I have [no] claims whatsoever on your property,” even though they were not acquired from him , she an sell them and give them and her sale is valid , for an inheritance that comes to a person of from another place, a man may make a condition upon her that she will not inherit it, and if they acquired I from her, even after she has married, her sale is valid, but he consumes the usufruct, and if she dies, he inherits her, for that is the implication of: “I have no claims on your property,” but their usufruct, I have a claim and as long as they are your property while you are alive, I have no claim on them – but after death, I have a claim on them.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Ketubot
Introduction
This mishnah discusses a husband’s renunciation of the rights to his wife’s property.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Ketubot
רבי יהודה אומר לעולם הוא אוכל פירי פירות – In the Gemara (Tractate Ketubot 83b), it explains what is usufruct and what is usufruct of the usufruct (i.e., produce vs. yield of the produce)? If she brought in [to the marriage] land and it produced fruit/usufruct, these are usufruct. If he sold these fruits/usufruct and purchased with them fields and they produced fruit/usufruct, these are yield of the produce/usufruct of the usufruct. And when he said to her, I have no claim against your property and their usufruct alone, he can consume the usufruct of the usufruct , according to the words of Rabbi Yehuda, he did not remove himself other than from the usufruct/produce alone and the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Ketubot
If a husband writes to his wife, “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property”, he may enjoy its usufruct during her lifetime and, when she dies, he is her heir. If so, why might he have written to her, “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property”? That if she sold it or gave it away her act is valid. The reality behind the scenarios mentioned in this mishnah is probably that the woman or her family would not agree to the marriage unless the husband renounced his rights to her property. Therefore the mishnah lists the effect that different statements will have on his rights. The general principle is that these statements are interpreted as minimally as possible. That is to say, we assume that the husband intended to relinquish as few rights as possible. Therefore, if he states that he has no claim upon her property, he still can benefit from the usufruct and he still inherits her. The only thing that he relinquishes is his right to prevent her from selling or even giving away her property.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Ketubot
רשב"ג אומר אם מתה יירשנה מפני שמתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה – as it is written (Numbers 27:11): “[If his father had no brothers, you shall assign his property to his nearest relative in his own clan,] and he shall inherit it.” From here [we learn] that the husband inherits his wife, but the final result of the matter is that the inheriting of wife by her husband is not from the Torah, but rather from the Rabbis, and the Biblical verse is a mere support, but nevertheless, the Halakha is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel not because it makes a condition against what is written in the Torah, but rather because the Sages made it stringent measure for the protection of the law (i.e., the Written Torah).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Ketubot
If he wrote, “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property and upon their produce”, he may not enjoy their usufruct during her lifetime but, when she dies, he inherits her. Rabbi Judah says: he may in all cases enjoy the usufruct from the usufruct unless he wrote to her: “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property and upon its produce and the produce of its produce and so on without end.” In this case, the husband specifically relinquishes his claim on the usufruct from her property. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, he can no longer benefit from the usufruct, but he does inherit her property when she dies. Rabbi Judah interprets his statement even more minimally; while he cannot use the produce itself, he may sell the produce and that which he buys from it is his.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Ketubot
If he wrote, “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property, its produce and the produce of its produce during your lifetime and after your death”, he may neither enjoy it produce during her lifetime nor does he inherit her when she dies. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: when she dies he inherits her because [by his declaration] he is making a condition which is contrary to what is written in the Torah and whenever a man makes a condition which is contrary to what is written in the Torah, his condition is null and void. In this case, the husband specifies that he has no claim on his wife’s property, and no claim on its produce or on the proceeds obtained from selling the produce, neither while she is alive nor after she dies. With this comprehensive statement, the husband now has no rights whatsoever to his wife’s property and does not even inherit her. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel points out a problem with this statement. The Torah mandates that a husband inherits his wife. By making such a stipulation, the husband is actually subverting Torah law. Therefore, according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel, the stipulation is null and void.
