Previous daf

1) 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.

2)

(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.

(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 Tosefes.

(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 which ...

1. ... the heirs of the first wife claim before the heirs of the second one are - when both women died after he did.
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.

(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 over heirs.

(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 retain it.

(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).

6)

(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 Dinar.

(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.