Daf Yomi - Kesuvos 91 - Highlights

Explaining the Argument of Rabbi Shimon and the Tanna Kamma

Is it possible to say that this is their argument? Doesn’t the Mishna state that Rebbi Shimon says: Even if there are possessions without achrayus (responsibility to replace to a buyer if seized) it is not enough to validate these kesuvos. There must be two dinar of possessions that have achrayus in order that both kesuvos should be valid.

The Gemora therefore answers: Here the argument is regarding if one dinar of property that has a lien on it is enough to validate both kesuvos. One opinion is that only property without a lien is valid, not property with a lien. The other opinion is that property with a lien is also valid.

The Gemora asks: If so, Rabbi Shimon’s statement that “if there is a dinar left” should read “because there is a dinar left!”

The Gemora therefore answers: The argument is regarding when there is a less than one dinar. One opinion is that only one dinar makes the kesuvos valid, not less. The other opinion (Rabbi Shimon) is that even less than a dinar validates the kesuvah.

The Gemora asks: This is a difficult interpretation, as Rabbi Shimon said that there must be a dinar! If you will say that the authors of these opinions should be switched (and Rabbi Shimon is the one who says that less than a dinar is not valid), the Tanna Kamma also clearly holds that a dinar is necessary! [Rashi explains that this is referring to the Tanna Kamma of the Mishna quoted at the beginning of this page. The Tanna Kmama there is the same Tanna Kamma as in this Beraisa, and he mentioned there that a dinar is required.]

The Gemora therefore answers: The argument is regarding one of the two arguments originally stated (whether a dinar is necessary from land, or whether possessions that have a lien count), with the authors of the opinions switched.

Mar Zutra said in the name of Rav Papa: The halachah is 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. The halachah is also that a 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).

The Gemora asks: It is understandable that if the first lesson (mentioned above) would be deduced from the Mishna and not and the second lesson, we would think that only if there is an extra dinar are both kesuvos valid. However, once we would know the second lesson is correct, the first lesson is obvious!

The Gemora answers: If the Mishna would only state the second lesson, we would think that the case is where a person marries three wives, and two of them die in his lifetime and one survives him, and the survivor then dies and only left a girl who does not receive an inheritance anyway. However, in a case where there were only two wives and one died during his lifetime and one died after he died, we should suspect that this will lead to the two inheritors fighting over who they are inheriting (see Rashi at length). This is why the Mishna still had to tell us that in this case the first wife’s sons receive their kesuvah for the male children. (91a)

Mishna

The Mishna states: If someone married two wives whom he survived, and then he died. One set of orphans wants to collect their kesuvah first (as it is greater than the kesuvah of the other wife), and there is only enough for two kesuvos. They should split the estate evenly. If there was a dinar for each kesuvah, each first collects their respective kesuvah. If the orphans say, we will add to the estate another dinar in order that we can collect our mother’s kesuvah, we do not listen to them. We rather have the property evaluated in Beis Din. If there were future monies coming to the estate after he died, they are not considered like actual possessions of the estate when the person died. Rebbi Shimon says: Even if there are possessions without achrayus it is not enough to validate these kesuvos. There must be two dinar of possessions that have achrayus in order that both kesuvos should be valid. (91a)
Property Value at Time of Death

The Beraisa states: If one set has a kesuvah of one thousand, and the other of five hundred, if there is an extra dinar each takes their kesuvah. If not, they split the estate evenly.

The Gemora asks: This is obvious! If the property was worth a lot when the father died and then went down in value, it is clear that the inheritors already were entitled to their kesuvos (as there originally was an extra dinar for each). What if the property was worth little when he died, and then appreciated in value?

The Gemora attempts to answer this question from the incident with the property of the house of Tzirtzur where these were the circumstances. They went before Rav Amram. Rav Amram said: Go compromise, but they did not listen. Rav Amram said: If you don’t listen, I will strike you with the thorn that does not draw blood (excommunication).

They sent this question to Rav Nachman. Rav Nachman stated: Just as in the case where the possessions were originally many the inheritors already acquired the kesuvah, so too in this case they already acquired their kesuvah. (91a – 91b)

Warding Off Creditors

There was a person who owed one thousand zuz, and he also owned two fields. He sold each for five hundred zuz. His creditor went and seized one of the fields from a buyer. When he was about to seize the other one, the buyer took one thousand zuz and went to him and said: “If this field is worth one thousand zuz to you, fine. If not, take this thousand zuz and go away.”

Rami bar Chama thought to rule that this is like our Mishna. The Mishna stated that the orphans who want to collect their kesuvah cannot simply donate a dinar to the estate to make them eligible to collect their kesuvah. Rava told him: Is this comparable? In that case, the other orphans will lose; here no one is losing out! He is giving one thousand and the creditor is getting one thousand!

The Gemora inquires: How much does Beis Din say the field is worth when the payment is recorded (in the incident above)? Ravina says one thousand, while Rav Avira says five hundred (its real value). The law is five hundred.

There was a person who owed one thousand zuz, and he also owned two small fields. He sold each for fifty zuz. His creditor went and seized one of the fields from a buyer. When he was about to seize the other one, the buyer took one hundred zuz and went to him and said: “If this field is worth one hundred zuz to you, fine. If not, take this hundred zuz and go away.”

Rav Yosef thought to rule that this is like our Mishna. The Mishna stated that the orphans who want to collect their kesuvah cannot simply donate a dinar to the estate to make them able to collect their kesuvah. Rava told him: Is this comparable? In that case the other orphans will lose, here no one is losing out! He is giving one hundred and the creditor is getting one hundred!

The Gemora inquires: How much does Beis Din say the field is worth when the payment is recorded (in the incident above)? Ravina says one hundred, while Rav Avira says fifty (its real value). The law is fifty.

There was a man who owed one hundred zuz. He died, and left a small field worth fifty zuz. The creditor went and seized the field. The orphans went and gave him fifty zuz, but then he seized it from them again (for the other fifty). They went before Abaye. Abaye said: It is a mitzvah for the orphans to pay the debt of their father. Now that he has seized the field again he has the right to do so. However, this is only of they paid him the value of the land as a sale, but if they paid him as paying off their father’s debt entirely, the creditor can no longer seize the property.

A person sold his mother’s kesuvah for a pittance. He told the buyer that if his mother comes and complains about the sale (see Rashi DH “Achrayus d’Nafsha” for the logistics of the complaint), he will not compensate him. His mother died and did not complain, but then the son went and complained. Rami bar Chama thought to say that he now takes the place of his mother. Rava replied: Although he did not accept liability for his mother’s actions, he did accept responsibility for his own actions (that he would not complain). (91b)

[END]