Daf Yomi - Kesuvos 90 - Highlights

Mishna

If a father married off his son when he was a minor, the kesuvah that he wrote when he was a minor is effective once he grows older, as he stayed married to her based on that kesuvah. If a convert converted with his wife, the kesuvah that they made when they were gentiles is effective, as he stayed married to her based on that kesuvah. (90a)

Are Additions Included?

Rav Huna says: She only receives the standard one (for a widow) or two hundred (for a girl who was never married) zuz kesuvah, but does not receive the additional monies discussed in the kesuvah. Rav Yehuda says: She receives those monies as well.

The Gemora attempts to solve this argument from a Beraisa. The Beraisa states: If they (adult or convert) wrote new additions to the kesuvah, she receives those new additions. This implies that she only receives new additions, not old additions to the kesuvah. The Gemora answers: It is possible that the Beraisa means that she even takes the new additions.

The Gemora asks: This is not what the Beraisa states. The Beraisa states: If they (adult or convert) wrote new additions to the kesuvah, she receives those new additions. If they did not add anything, she only receives one or two hundred zuz. This is seemingly a strong difficulty on Rav Yehuda’s position. The Gemora concludes that Rav Yehuda indeed made an incorrect inference from the Mishna. When our Mishna stated that “her kesuvah is valid,” Rav Yehuda thought this meant that whatever was stated in the kesuvah is valid. It really was only referring to the basic obligation of kesuvah, not whatever was in the kesuvah. (90a)

WE SHALL RETURN TO YOU,
HAKOSEIV LE’ISHTO

Mishna

If a man married two wives and then died, the first wife comes before the second wife (in collecting her kesuvah). The inheritors of the first wife are also before those of the second wife. If a man married a wife and she died, and then he married a second wife and he died, the second wife and her inheritors are before the inheritors of the first wife. (90a)
Is the Seizure of a Later Creditor Valid?

The Gemora asks: Being that the Mishna says that “the first wife is before the second wife” and it does not say that “the first wife has and the second wife does not,” the implication is that if the second wife grabs what she is owed before the first wife we do not take it away from her. This implies that if a later creditor takes before an earlier creditor, his collection is deemed valid!

The Gemora answers: In fact, the collection of a later creditor who seizes possessions before an earlier creditor is invalid. What does the Mishna mean when it says she is “before?” It means totally (even regarding seizure of property), akin to the Mishna later that says that a son is “before” a daughter (in inheriting their father).

The Gemora cites others who have a different approach. Being that the Mishna does not say that if the second wife seized property before the first wife we do not take it away, this implies that if she indeed seized property we would take it away. This implies that if a later creditor takes before an earlier creditor, his collection is deemed invalid!

The Gemora answers: In fact, such a collection is deemed valid. Being that the second part of the Mishna stated that the second wife and her inheritors are “before” the inheritors of the first wife, the first part of the Mishna also used a terminology that the first wife is “before” the second wife. (90a – 90b)
The Three Lessons

We learn from our Mishna three things. Firstly, we learn that if one wife dies during his lifetime and one is alive when he dies, the children from the first wife still have a kesuvah for the male children, and we do not suspect they will fight (with the second set). How is this apparent from the Mishna? Being that the Mishna states “the second wife and her inheritors are before the inheritors of the first wife,” this implies that while they are before the inheritors of the first wife, the inheritors can still claim the kesuvah if there is any money left afterwards.

We also see that one kesuvah that has a value appropriate for a kesuvah (a dinar of the estate) can also allow for the validity of a second kesuvah (which does not have that value as there is not two dinar in the estate). How is this apparent from the Mishna? Being that the Mishna does not say that the second collection can only occur “if there is an extra dinar (corresponding to this kesuvah).”

We also see that a kesuvah for the male children cannot take away from property by way of a lien. If it could, then the inheritors of the first wife (whose kesuvah is earlier than that of the second wife) should be able to seize the property of the second wife.

Rav Ashi asked: How do we know that all of these conclusions are correct? It is possible that if one wife dies during his lifetime and one is alive when he dies, the children from the first wife no longer have a kesuvah for the male children. When the Mishna says “they are before the inheritors of the first wife” it means regarding inheritance, not regarding a kesuvah for the male children. Perhaps you will ask the following (if the Mishna is discussing inheritance due to the father): Why does the Mishna call the sons the “inheritors of the first wife?” Being that the Mishna addressed the second wife’s inheritors (who are inheriting her kesuvah) as such, it also called the sons of the first wife “her inheritors.”

Rav Ashi continues: The lesson that one kesuvah that has a value appropriate for a kesuvah can also allow for the validity of a second kesuvah may also be untrue. The case of the Mishna may simply be where there is a dinar for each kesuvah.

The Gemora states: In fact, whether a kesuvah for the male children is still given to the first wife’s inheritors is an argument among the Tanaim. The Beraisa states: If one wife died in his lifetime and one is still alive when he dies, Ben Nanas says that the sons of the first wife can say to the sons of the second wife “You are the sons of one who owes money. Take the kesuvah of your mother and leave (and we will take our kesuvah for the male children).” Rabbi Akiva says: The kesuvah of the first wife jumped (at the time of the husband’s death) to the inheritors of the second wife.

The Gemora asks: It seems that their argument is that one holds that if one wife dies during his lifetime and one is alive when he dies, the children from the first wife still have a kesuvah for the male children, and one says they do not.

Rabbah says: I found the Rabbis of Rav’s Academy who were sitting and saying the following teaching: Everyone agrees that if one wife dies during his lifetime and one is alive when he dies, the children from the first wife still have a kesuvah for the male children. Here the argument (between Rebbi Akiva and Ben Nanas) is regarding whether one kesuvah that has a value appropriate for a kesuvah can also allow for the validity of a second kesuvah. Ben Nanas says: One kesuvah that has a value appropriate for a kesuvah can also allow for the validity of a second kesuvah, and even if a creditor is owed that money it can count towards validating a kesuvah. Rebbi Akiva says: Both another kesuvah and a creditor take away from making a kesuvah valid.

Rabbah added: I told them that everyone agrees that if a creditor is owed money the money counts towards validating a kesuvah. The only argument is if a kesuvah that has a value appropriate for a kesuvah can also allow for the validity of a second kesuvah.

Rav Yosef asked: If this is the reasoning behind their argument, why does Rebbi Akiva use the terminology “the inheritance already jumped etc.?” He should say that it depends if there is an extra dinar!

Rav Yosef therefore states: It seems that their argument is indeed where one wife dies during his lifetime and one is alive when he dies, whether or not the children from the first wife still have a kesuvah for the male children.

This is similar to another argument among the Tanaim. The Beraisa states: If he married a first wife who later died, and he then remarried and died, the sons of this one (the Gemora will discuss which wife this is referring to) can come after his death and collect their Kesuvah. Rabbi Shimon says: If there is an extra dinar, each can come and collect their kesuvos. Otherwise, they split evenly. [The Gemora will explain this argument later.] (90b)

[END]