Komentarz do Ketuwot 10:10

מי שהיה. יורשי הראשונה קודמם ליורשי השניה – if his wives died after him until they did not have sufficient time to collect [their Ketubah settlement].

Introduction Above in chapter four, mishnah ten, we learned that sons inherit their mothers ketuboth, above and beyond the inheritance they receive from their father. This clause in the mishnah is called “ketubat benin dichrin” which is Aramaic for “the ketubah of male children”. Our mishnah talks about situations in which a man had two wives and either he died or both of the wives died.

שניה ויורשיה קודמים – that she is a creditor and the inheritors of the first wife come to inherit from their father, according to the Ketubah “male issue,” for we are inheritors, it is taught in the Mishnah. Therefore, they pay the obligation first and what remains they shall succeed to the dowry, therefore, we pay the obligation first and what remains, they inherit, and specifically when the second [wife] took an oath on her Ketubah, then she or her heirs take her Ketubah. But if she died after her husband passed away, and she did not take an oath on her Ketubah, her heirs do not take anything from her Ketubah for we hold that a person does not bequeath an oath to his children, meaning to say, money that a person doesn’t take possession of other than through an oath, and if he dies prior to his taking an oath, that money a man cannot bequeath to his children.

If a man was married to two wives and died, the first wife takes precedence over the second, and the heirs of the first wife take precedence over the heirs of the second. If a man dies and leaves two wives, the first wife’s ketubah takes precedence over that of the second wife. If after the first wife collects her ketubah not enough money remains to pay the second wife, she will not receive her full ketubah. This is because the debt to the first wife was incurred before the debt to the second wife. If before they collect their ketubah, the wives die, the first wife’s heirs take the ketubah before the second wife’s heirs take theirs.

If he married a first wife and she died and then he married a second wife and he died, the second wife and her heirs take precedence over the heirs of the first wife. In this case the first wife dies while the husband is still alive, and he inherits her and her ketubah. He then marries a second wife and he dies. The first wife’s heirs want to now collect the ketubah (ketubat benin dichrin) from their mother, as I explained in the introduction. The second wife, or if she subsequently dies, her heirs, want their ketubah. The mishnah rules that the second wife or her heirs collect first because they are collecting a normal ketubah and they are like creditors who come to collect a debt. In contrast the first wife’s inheritors are collecting an inheritance which they have received from their mother and the payment of debts always takes precedence over inheritance. Therefore the second wife or her heirs receives their ketubah and only if enough money remains will the first wife’s heirs receive their ketubah.

ויתומים מבקשים כתובת אמן – since the Ketubah [of] their mother was greater than that of the other, and her children say that the Ketubah of the male issue is taken, and similarly you (the children of the other wife) and the rest we will divide.

Introduction In the previous mishnah we began to learn some rules about the “ketubath benin dichrin” which is the clause in the ketubah which states that sons inherit their mother’s ketubah above and beyond their split in their father’s inheritance. Our mishnah teaches that this is only so when there is enough for there to be an inheritance of at least one denar after all of the “ketuboth benin dichrin” have been paid out. The reason is that “ketubath benin dichrin” is an enactment of the Sages whereas inheritance laws are mandated by the Torah. If we allowed the ketuboth benin dichrin to be collected and no inheritance to be split, than an enactment of the Sages would displace a law from the Torah.

חולקים בשוה – like the rest of all the inheritances and they don’t take the Ketubah of male issue.

If a man was married to two wives and they died, and subsequently he died, and the orphans [of one of the wives] claim their mother’s kethubah and there is only enough for the two kethuboth,[all the orphans] they divide it equally. Let us say Reuven is married to two women, Leah and Hannah. Leah has a ketubah of 1000 zuz and Hannah has a ketubah of 100 zuz. After having children, both women die, and Reuven inherits both ketuboth. When Reuven dies, Leah’s children want to collect their ketubah. The Mishnah teaches that if there is only enough to pay back both ketuboth, i.e. there is only 1100 in Reuven’s estate, then all of the money is split evenly. There must be an inheritance, since it is a Toraitic law.

אם אמרו יתומים – the children of the larger Ketubah.

If there was a surplus of [at least] one dinar, these take their mother’s ketubah and these take their mothers ketubah. If in the above case when Reuven dies he leaves an estate of more than 1100, even if the estate is only 1101, Leah’s children take their mother’s ketubah of 1000, Hannah’s children receive 100 and the last denar is split evenly.

הרי אנו מעלין על נכסי אבינו – we reckon their funds upon us to receive them as of a higher price in order that there will an additional Denar and they take the Ketubah of their mother.

If the orphans [of one of the wives] says, “We are raising the estate of our father by a denar [more than the total amount of the kethuboth]”, in order that they can take their mother's kethubah, they are not listened to, rather the estate is evaluated by the court. As we can see from the above scenario, it is definitely in Leah’s children’s best interest that there be a surplus over the value of the two ketuboth. The mishnah now states that they may not artificially raise the value of the inheritance, by adding a denar or more, in order to take their mother’s ketubah. If the estate was worth 1100, they may not pitch in one denar in order to make the estate worth 1101, so that they could take 1000. If they try to do so they will be denied and the inheritance will be split evenly.

היו שם נכסים בראוי – as for example, merchandise that is in the hands of others or a loan.

Introduction This mishnah is a continuation of the previous mishnah, which dealt with ketuboth benin dichrin. As we learned yesterday, ketuboth benin dichrin may not be collected if by there collection there would remain no money for the inheritance.

אינן כבמוחזק – they are not considered to be as if they are in possession in his hand and there is here and there is an excess of a Denar.

If there was property that would soon belong to the estate, it is not [regarded] as [property held] in possession. If there was not enough in the father’s estate to cover both “ketuboth benin dichrin”, the mothers’ ketuboth that the sons wish to inherit, then the inheritance is split evenly between all of the sons. Our mishnah teaches that the estate is not considered to include property that is not currently in its possession. This refers to an inheritance that will soon fall to the estate, for instance from the grandfather, or money that the father had loaned to others and had not yet been collected. Although this money will too eventually be divided up between the heirs, since it is not currently available, and indeed there is always the possibility that the money will never come to the estate, it is not considered into the equation.

שאין להם אחריות – movable possessions.

Rabbi Shimon says: even if there was movable property it is not regarded unless there was real estate worth one denar more than [the total amount of] the two kethuboth. Rabbi Shimon says that the extra denar which must exist in order for the ketuboth benin dichrin to be collected must be in land and cannot be in movable property.

שיש להם אחריות – land/property and the Halakha is according to Rabbi Shimon and even at this time where we have the practice that movable property of the orphans is mortgaged to the creditor, the Ketubah of male issue is not practiced with movable possessions, but only with land/property.

של זו מנה ושל זו מאתים כו' – and the [Ketubot of the] three of them were signed on one day, for if it were on three [separate] days, the earliest one with a document comes first in collection, or if he didn’t leave anything other than movable possessions, for there is no law of precedence in movable possessions.

Introduction This mishnah discusses a man who married three women at the same time, and gave one of them a ketubah worth one maneh (100 zuz), the second a ketubah worth 200 and the third a ketubah worth 300. When he dies, and does not leave enough to cover all three, the question is how do they divide up his estate. I am explaining this mishnah according to Albeck’s explanation, who uses R. Saadiah Gaon’s explanation to the mishnah as his basis. The Talmud offers a different, more complicated explanation.

חולקות בשוה – for the power of them three of them similar with the hypothecary obligation of the Maneh and for all of them there is a Maneh.

The general rule is that any maneh (100 zuz) that is “responsible” for all three ketuboth, they divide equally. In our case, 100 zuz is “responsible” for all three, because all three have at least one maneh of a ketubah. Any maneh that is not responsible for all of the ketuboth is divided according to the percentage that they deserve from the total amount of ketubah money the man owes. In our case the total amount is 600 zuz; the first woman owns 1/6, the second 1/3 and the third 1/2. This shall be illustrated as we proceed.

היו שם מאתים – there isn’t for the person who has hypothecary obligation for a Maneh other than a Maneh, but the second Maneh there is no hypothecary obligation for a document of the owner of the Maneh.

If a man who was married to three wives died, and the kethubah of one was a maneh, and of the other two hundred zuz, and of the third three hundred zuz and the estate [was worth] only one maneh they divide it equally. If the estate was worth only one maneh, each woman has an equal right to this maneh. This is because the maneh is “responsible” for all three ketuboth. Therefore they divide it equally.

של מנה נוטלת חמשיםי – In the Gemara (Talmud Ketubot 93a), the question is raised that one-third of a Maneh was appropriate to be taken, and how does she take “fifty” which is one-half of a Maneh and it answers that the our Mishnah is speaking about when the owner of the two hundred said to the owner of the Maneh: I have no claim and I don’t have anything to do with the Maneh that is subjugated to you, and your portion will not be reduced on my account; therefore, she and the owner of the three hundred divide it, and because the portion of owner of the two hundred was not given to the owner of the portion of the Maneh as a gift, but rather she said to her that she would not quarrel with her, and because of her, her portion would not be reduced after the owner of the Maneh took fifty, there remained the merit of the owner of the “two hundred” as equal with the merit of the owner of the “three hundred,” and each of them take three golden Denarim, which are seventy five silver Denarim as every golden Denare is twenty-five silver Denarim.

If the estate [was worth] two hundred zuz [the woman whose ketubah] is a maneh receives fifty zuz [and the woman whose ketubah] was two hundred and [the woman whose ketubah] was three hundred [receive each] three gold denarii (=seventy-five. If the estate was worth 200, the first maneh is divided equally, as above. The second maneh is not “responsible” for all three ketuboth, hence it is not divided equally but rather by percentages. The first woman takes 1/6 of 100, leaving her with a total of 50 zuz. There is now 150 zuz left, all of which is subject to the ketuboth of the second and third widows. Therefore it is divided equally, both women taking 75 zuz.

היו שם שלש מאות – the first Maneh is subjugated to everyone and the second is to the owner of the “two hundred” and to the owner of the “three hundred,” and the third to the owner of the “three hundred” alone.

If the estate [was worth] three hundred zuz, [the woman whose ketubah] was a maneh receives fifty zuz and [the woman whose ketubah] was two hundred [receives] a maneh and [the woman whose ketubah] was worth three hundred [receives] six gold denarii (=one hundred and fifty. In this case all three divide according to their percentages. The first woman takes 1/6 which is 50 zuz, the second woman takes 1/3 which is 100 zuz, and the third woman takes 150 zuz, which is 1/2. In such a scenario, each woman takes one-half of her ketubah. [Note that this division seems to work according to a different system from the previous two clauses.]

של מנה נוטלת חמשים ושל מאתים מנה – such as the example where the owner of three hundred said to the owner of the Maneh and to the owner of the “two hundred”: “I have no claim against you with the Maneh.” Therefore, the first Maneh the owner of the “two hundred” and the owner of the Maneh divide; it is found that the owner of the Maneh takes “fifty” and the second Maneh, the owners of the “two hundred” and the “three hundred”; it is found that the owner of “two hundred” takes a Maneh – fifty that was divided from the first Mnaeh with the owner of the Maneh and fifty from the second Maneh that she divided with the owner of the “three-hundred,” and third Maneh – the owner of the “three hundred” takes it all; it is found that she takes six golden Denars which a Maneh and one-half of the entire third Maneh that remains to her and one-half of the Maneh that she divided with the owner of the “two hundred.” And in the Gemara (Talmud Ketubot 93a) reaches the conclusion that our Mishnah is [according to] Rabbi Natan and is not the Halakha, for Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] sai: I do not approve (literally, “see”) of Rabbi Natan’s views in these cases for [the three wives] take equal shares, for since all of his landed property is pledged to the Ketubah, all three of the Manehs are subjugated to the owner of the Maneh like the rest of her colleagues until she collects all of the Ketubah settlement; therefore, they divide it equally, and as such, the owner of the Maneh takes like the owner of the “two hundred and the “three hundred.” But the three who put their money into a single purse, this one of Maneh, and that one of “two hundred” and the other of “three hundred,” the profit in their monies that was grew in value, they take a Denar – for each one takes according to his funds. And specifically, when they grew in value as a result of the monies themselves, such as the coinage changed or they added to it or subtracted from it, then they divide the prophet or the loss according to the money, but if they purchased goods from the monies that they placed into the purse and they earned in value through the goods or lost, they do not divide the gain or the loss other than according to the number of partners, not according to the money and as such they take in the loss and/or in the gain – whomever placed in a small amount of money in the purse is like that individual that placed a lot of money, if they not make a condition from the beginning that they would divide it according to thej money. And such is how they judge in all the Jewish courts.

Similarly, if three persons contributed to a joint fund and the fund lost or gained they share in the same manner. If three or more people invest together, each investing a different percentage, when they divide up the profits or losses, they are divided in the same manner.

הראשונה קודמת לשניה – hers whose time of her Ketubah precedes that of the second, whose time is later, and similarly for all of them.

Introduction In yesterday’s mishnah we learned of a case where a husband married several women at the same time, each having a ketubah of a different size. In today’s mishnah we learn about the case of several women who were married to one man, but at different times.

הראשונה נשבעת לשניה – if the second [wife] claims: “swear to me that you have not collected from my husband anything, for perhaps there will not remain for me from what I will collect my Ketubah and even the third [wife] will claim the same thing to the second [wife] and the fourth [wife] to the third, but the fourth collects without an oath as for example if there is no heir or another creditor who will make her take an oath.

If a man who was married to four wives died, his first wife takes precedence over the second, the second over the third and the third over the fourth. This section’s halakhah is basically the same as that which we learned in mishnah one. It is brought here as an introduction to the rest of the mishnah.

בן ננס אומר כו' – the disagreement of the first Tanna and Ben Nanos is explained in the Gemara (Talmud Ketubot 94a) as in the case where there is found one field from these field that the first three wives have collected which is not his, and it was known that he stole it, and eventually that its owners will come and take it and when the fourth [wife] comes to collect her Ketubah settlement from the fourth field, this one comes and says to her: “tomorrow the person who had been robbed will come and take his field; it is my desire that you will take an oath that you have not collected your Ketubah during the lifetime of the husband”; the First Tanna/teacher holds that the creditor of a later date who came early and collected, what he had collected, he did not collect; therefore, why should she take an oath if the person who was robbed will come and snatch it from this one. Let her return to the fourth [wife] and take from her what she collected, and hence the fourth [wife] would be a creditor of a later date. And Ben Nanos holds that a creditor o a later date who came early and collected what he collected, he has collected, and if she (i.e. the wife who came early) takes possession of this, the third [wife] cannot return to her, and therefore, takes an oath to her that she did not collect anything from the property of her husband and the Halakha is according to the First Tanna/teacher. Of itself, we learn that if she did not take hold of movable property, that she must take an oath, according to everyone’s opinion since there is no precedence as regards to movable property and what she collected, she collected.

The first must take an oath to the second, the second to the third, and the third to the fourth, and the fourth recovers payment without an oath. Ben Nannus says: Should she be rewarded because she is the last? She too may not exact payment except by an oath. Each wife must take an oath to the subsequent wife that she did not already take her ketubah. The subsequent wives are concerned lest there not remain enough money to collect their own ketuboth and hence they have a right to make the previous wives swear. However, the fourth wife does not need to take an oath. Of course, if there are inheritors she needs to take an oath in any case, as we learned in 8:9. According to Ben Nannus, even the fourth wife must take an oath. The Talmud explains that this oath would be significant if it turns out that one of the fields that one of the first wives collected for her ketubah did not really belong to the husband and therefore was taken away from the wife who had collected it. In such a case the wife who had received that field would want to collect from the fourth wife but she can’t because the fourth wife is not obligated to give up property that she had already received. However, the oath ensures the previous wife that at least the fourth wife did not collect illegitimately.

If all were issued on the same day then the woman [whose kethubah] preceded that of the other, even if only by one hour, gets [her ketubah first]. And so it was the custom in Jerusalem to write the hours. If all ketuboth were issued on the same day, then the precedence can be determined by the hour written into the ketubah. The mishnah teaches that this indeed was the custom in Jerusalem. Today we don’t write hours into ketuboth. Then again, men can no longer marry two wives!

If all kethuboth were issued at the same hour and the estate is worth no more than a maneh, they divide it equally. If all of the ketuboth were issued during the same hour, then the halakhah is as it was in mishnah four. If there is only one maneh, they all share it equally.

וכתבה ראשונה ללוקח וכו' – as, for example when they purchased it from her hand, and in the Gemara (Talmud Ketubot 95a) it raises the question: Could she not say: “I merely wished to oblige my husband (i.e., her purchase was not to be taken seriously)? And it responds, as for example, that the husband sold this field [of his wife] to another man prior to that one, and the wife did not want to endorse it for this one, but she endorsed it for the other, and if it is that it is acting [in a manner that is] obliging to her husband, she would have endorsed the first [sale].

Introduction This mishnah deals with cases where multiple parties are attempting to collect a debt.

פשרה – adjustment/compromise; not everything to this one, nor everything to that one, and the language of “tepid,” – not hot nor cold.

If a man who was married to two wives sold his field, and the first wife wrote to the buyer, “I have no claim whatsoever upon you”, the second wife may take [the field] away from the buyer, and the first wife from the second, and the buyer from the first wife; and so they go on in turn until they arrange a compromise between them. The same law applies also to a creditor and to a woman creditor. In this case a man marries two women, but not simultaneously. At this point all of his property has a lien on it from the two ketuboth. Later he sells a field to a buyer, who gets the first wife to promise him that should her husband die, she will not collect that field as her ketubah. Then the husband dies and cannot repay either ketubah. The first wife cannot claim the field from the purchaser, because she relinquished that right. However, the second wife can collect from the purchaser (she did not relinquish any rights) and then the first wife can collect from the second wife, because her ketubah takes precedence. Then the buyer can take back the field from the first wife, because she relinquished her claim on that field, at which point the second wife can again claim from the purchaser. This process will continue in circles until they come up with a compromise. The same is true with the case of a creditor, a borrower and two purchasers. A borrower has two fields and sells them to two different people, and the value of the each field is equal to the value of the debt. Then the creditor writes to the second purchaser that he will not collect from that field. If the borrower defaults he may collect from the first purchaser, and the first purchaser may collect from the second purchaser, from whom the creditor may collect. On and on this process would go until they reach a compromise. The same would be true for a woman creditor, which means a woman whose husband owes her her ketubah. This is the same case as above. The husband sells two fields to two different people and the wife writes to the second one that she would not collect from his field. She may then collect from the first field, the first purchaser may collect from the second and the second from the wife.

וכן ב"ח – and two mortgaged properties. Reuven has a claim against Shimon for a Maneh, and he has two fields and sold them to two people – to this one for fifty and to that one for fifty, and the creditor wrote to the second purchaser: “I have nothing against you.” The creditor takes from the hand of the first, for he is not able to say to say to him: “I left you a place that you can collect from him, for his debt corresponds to both, and the first purchaser removes from the hand of the second, and the creditor returns and removes even that from the first, and the second purchaser from the creditor and goes back in turn until they make a compromise.

וכן אשה בעלת חוב – she had her Ketubah on her husband, and he sold his two fields to two [different] people but neither of the two had other than up to her Ketubah, and she wrote to the second [purchaser]: “I have no claim against you and nothing to do with you.” The woman removes from the first purchaser and he removes it from the hand of the second [and the woman from the first] and the second from the woman and the first purchaser from the hand of the second and it goes back in turn [until they make a compromise].