ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 90
If a father marries off a son who is a Katan, or if a Nochri wrote his wife
a Kesuvah, and then converted together with her, both women still receive
their Kesuvos, even after the one grows-up and the other converts - because
even though their marital status has changed, the husband intends in both
cases, to retain her under the original conditions.
(a) According to Rav Huna, they only receive the Manah, Masayim, but not the
Tosefes that he inserted in the Kesuvah - according to Rav Yehudah, they
receive that, too.
***** Hadran Alach ha'Kosev le'Ishto *****
(b) When the Tana of the Beraisa says 'Chidshu, Noteles Mah she'Chidshu' -
he means that if the Katan or the Ger add to the Kesuvah after they change
their status, then their wives will receive whatever they added.
(c) The Beraisa, as it stands, implies that they do not receive any Tosefes
that they added before their status changed. So, to accommodate his
opinion - Rav Yehudah tries to amend the Beraisa to 'Chidshu, Noteles *Af*
Mah she'Chidshu', meaning that she receives both the Tosefes that he wrote
before and the Tosefes that he wrote afterwards.
(d) However, the Beraisa itself continues 'Lo Chidshu, Besulah Govah
Masayim, Almanah, Manah (proving Rav Yehudah wrong). Rav Yehudah
misinterpreted the words in our Mishnah 'K'suvasah Kayemes' - thinking that
this pertained to the Tosefes as well a to the Manah Masayim. But he was
wrong, because in fact, it pertained to Manah Masayim, and not to the
***** Mi she'Hayah Nasuy *****
(a) If a man who is married to two women dies, the woman whose Kesuvah is
dated first has the first rights to the Kesuvah. The circumstances under
1. ... the heirs of the first wife claim before the heirs of the second one
are - when both women died after he did.
(b) The reason for this is - because the wife who survived her husband is a
creditor (and so are her heirs, should she die), whereas the heirs of his
first wife, who are claiming either Kesuvas B'nin Dichrin or their father's
inheritance, are heirs (and not creditors), and creditors take precedence
2. ... the second woman and her heirs take precedence over the heirs of the
first one are - when the first wife died before her husband, whereas the
second wife died after him.
(a) Initially, we infer from the Lashon of our Mishnah 'ha'Rishonah
*Kodemes* li'Sheniyah' - that the wife only *takes predecence* over the
second one, but that should the second one seize the Kesuvah first, she may
(b) This teaches us the principle - that if the second creditor seizes the
property from the debtor before the first one managed to claim it, he is
permitted to keep what he seized.
(c) The Mishnah in Bava Basra 'Ben Kodem le'Bas' refutes this inference
however - because there we see that 'Kodemes' cannot be taken literally
(Lechatchilah but not Bedieved), seeing as a daughter does not inherit at
all when there are sons, and that, if she were to seize the inheritance, we
would take it away from her and give it to her brothers.
(a) The second Lashon infers from the fact that the Tana did not write 'Im
Kadmah Sh'niyah ve'Tafsah, Ein Motzi'in mi'Yadah' - that if the second wife
seized the property, we take it away from her (proving that, if the second
creditor seizes the property of the debtor, we take it away from him).
(b) We refute this inference by quoting the Seifa 'Nasa es ha'Rishonah
u'Meisah ... Sh'niyah ve'Yorshehah Kodmin le'Yorshei Rishonah', where
'Kodmin' cannot mean literally Lechatchilah but not Bedieved, because the
husband's property is Meshubad to the second wife and her heirs, since they
are his creditors (so even Bedieved, we will take it away from them).
(a) We learn three things from the Seifa of our Mishnah. The first of these
is that even when one of the mothers died in her husband's lifetime and the
second one, after his death, the Takanah of Kesuvas B'nin Dichrin still
applies. We might otherwise have thought - that Chazal only instituted
Kesuvas B'nin Dichrin when both mothers died in their father's lifetime, and
both sets of children come to inherit their mother's Kesuvah from their
father - but not when the first set of children come to inherit from their
father, and the second set, from their mother (who died after their father.
There, the second set have the right to protest should the first set come to
receive more of their father's property than themselves.
(b) We infer this Chidush from our Mishnah - which states that the second
wife and her heirs take precedence over the heirs of the first wife,
implying that, if there would be sufficient property, then they would both
inherit their mother's K'suvos.
(c) The second Chidush is based on the Tana making no mention of there being
an extra Dinar (a basic prerequisite for 'Kesuvas B'nin Dichrin to be
effective) - which teaches us that the second Kesuvah, which, as we already
explained, is being claimed in the form of a debt, serves as the extra
(d) The third Chidush is that the woman's heirs cannot claim Kesuvas B'nin
Dichrin from Meshubadim. This is so ...
1. - because K'suvas B'nin Dichrin is not considered to be a debt, but an
inheritance, and it is obvious that heirs cannot claim their inheritance
from Meshubadim (which their father sold).
2. ... because otherwise, why could the heirs of the first wife not claim
the Kesuvas B'nin Dichrin from the heirs of the second one.
(a) Rav Ashi repudiates two of the three proofs. 'Kodmin' (in the Seifa) he
argues, means that the first heirs are the first to inherit from their
father, but not because of Kesuvas B'nin Dichrin. The problem we have with
this is from the Lashon of (the Seifa of) our Mishnah - which refers to the
first set of heirs as 'Yorshei ha'Rishonah', suggesting that they are
claiming the Kesuvas B'nin Dichrin (otherwise, it should refer to them as
their father's heirs, not their mother's)?
(b) We resolve this Kashya from ' ... *Sh'niyah ve'Yorshehah* - who *are*
their mother's heirs, and because of that, the Tana also refers to the heirs
of the first wife as 'Yorshei ha'Rishonah'.
(c) Even assuming that 'Kodmin' *does* refer to Kesuvas B'nin Dichrin, Rav
Ashi rejects the proof that the second Kesuvah serves as the extra Dinar of
Yerushah - because, based on the fact that the Tana will inform us later of
the Mosar Dinar, he takes it for granted here that there is an extra Dinar,
and does not bother to mention it.
(a) ben Na'nes, referring to the Seifa of our Mishnah, permits the heirs of
the first wife to say to the heirs of the second one 'Take your Kesuvah and
go'! We initially interpret this statement - to mean that even though one of
the mothers died during her husband's lifetime, and the other one, after his
death, each set of heirs nevertheless inherit their mother's Kesuvah
(Kesuvas B'nin Dichrin). 'and go'! implies that this Halachah applies even
though there is no Mosar Dinar.
(b) According to this interpretation - Rebbi Akiva says that, seeing as the
husband died during the lifetime of his second wife, the Din of B'nin
Dichrin no longer applies (even if there *is* an extra Dinar).
(a) The Rabbanan de'Bei Rav quoted by Rabah disagree with the above
explanation. According to them, Rebbi Akiva agrees with ben Na'nes, that
Kesuvas B'nin Dichrin *does* apply to heirs of the wife who died before her
husband and heirs of the wife who died after him, provided there is an extra
Dinar. The Machlokes between ben Na'nes and Rebbi Akiva is when there is no
extra Dinar - and that is the reason that Rebbi Akiva dismisses the Din of
B'nin Dichrin in this case.
(b) When the Rabbanan de'Bei Rav added 've'Hu ha'Din le'Ba'al Chov' - they
meant that the same Machlokes will apply when both mothers died in their
husband's lifetime, and the extra Dinar is in the form of a Chov which the
creditor is now claiming from both sets of heirs.
(c) According to Rabah - everyone will agree that a Ba'al Chov has the Din
of Mosar Dinar, and they only dispute the second set of heirs who are also
considered creditors, because there, it is one of the sets of heirs who
receives the debt, and not a third party.
(d) We can consider a debt (which goes to the creditor) to be the extra
Dinar of inheritance - because it is a Mitzvah incumbent upon the heirs to
pay their father's debts.
(a) Rav Yosef asks on the Rabbanan de'Bei Rav's interpretation of the
Machlokes, from the Lashon of Rebbi Akiva, who says 'K'var Kaftzah Nachlah
Milifnei B'nei ha'Rishonah' - which implies that there is no Din of Kesuvas
B'nin Dichrin at all. According to them, he should rather have said 'Im Yesh
Sham Mosar Dinar, Notlin ... '?
(b) So Rav Yosef interprets the Machlokes as we explained it initially -
whether, if one of the mothers died during her husband's lifetime, and the
other one, after his death, each set of heirs nevertheless inherit their
mother's Kesuvah (ben Na'nes), or not (Rebbi Akiva).
(c) In another Beraisa, the Tana Kama (discussing the same case as that of
the Seifa of our Mishnah) states 'Ba'in Banehah shel Zu le'Achar Misah
ve'Notlin Kesuvas Iman'. According to Rav Yosef - he is referring to the
second set of heirs, because only they can claim their mother's debt, like
Rebbi Akiva in the previous Beraisa, because, even if there is an extra
Dinar, the sons of the first wife cannot claim their mother's Kesuvah due to
the fear of strife.
(d) According to Rebbi Shimon - as long as there is an extra Dinar, both
sets of heirs will receive Kesuvas B'nin Dichrin, like ben Na'nes.