Kesubos - Daf 91
- The kesubas b’nin dichrin is only given to two sets of sons when there is a מותר דינר
The next Mishnah states: מי שהיה נשוי שתי נשים ומתו – If someone was married to two wives and they both died, and afterwards he died, ויתומים מבקשין כתובת אמן – and the yesomim of the wife with the larger kesubah want their mother’s kesubah, which Rashi explains to mean that they suggest to the other set of sons that they each take their mother’s kesubah and then split the rest, but there is only enough in the estate to pay for the two kesubos, חולקין בשוה – they divide the estate equally, rather than giving each set of sons their mother’s kesubah. היה שם מותר דינר – If there was a surplus dinar there, they each take their mother’s kesubah, and the remaining dinar is divided equally among all of them. If the yesomim from the mother with the larger kesubah said: אנחנו מעלים על נכסי אבינו יפה דינר כדי שיטלו כתובת אמן אין שומעין להן – We will inflate the value of our father’s property by the value of a dinar, so that they can take their mother’s kesubah, we do not listen to them, אלא שמין את הנכסים בבית דין – rather we appraise the property in Beis Din according to its real value.
- מועטין ונתרבו מאי
The Gemara says, פשיטא מרובין ונתמעטו כבר זכו בהן יורשין – It is obvious that if there were a large amount of assets in the estate when the father died, and then they decreased in value to the point that there is no longer a surplus dinar, the heirs of the larger kesubah have already acquired their share of the estate. Rashi explains that even though the estate decreased in value before Beis Din had appraised its value, the sons of the larger kesubah have already acquired the right to take their mother’s kesubah, since at the time of their father’s death, there was a מותר דינר. But what is the din in a case of מועטין ונתרבו – there were little assets when the father died, and they increased in value so that there was a מותר דינר? A case like this came to Rav Amram and he ruled that the sons were able to collect their mothers’ kesubos, but the sons with the smaller kesubah did not accept his judgment. He sent them to Rav Nachman, who overruled Rav Amram, and said: Just as in the case where the value of the assets decreased after the father’s death, זכו בהן היורשין – the sons with the larger kesubah have already acquired their share of the estate, meaning that they can collect their mother’s kesubah before splitting the estate, so too in the case when the value of the assets increased after the father’s death, זכו בהן היורשין – the sons with the smaller kesubah have acquired the estate, and it is split evenly between the two sets of sons.
- The son who sold his rights to his mother’s kesubah for a small amount
The Gemara brings a case of a certain person who sold his mother’s kesubah for a small amount. Rashi explains that his mother was married to another man, and he sold his rights to it while her husband was alive. He could only sell it for a small amount since he would only receive the kesubah if his mother were to die after her husband. He said to the buyer: If my mother comes and protests the sale of her kesubah, לא מפצינא לך – I will not save it for you, which Rashi explains to mean that he will not refund the money. It occurred that his mother died without protesting the sale, but the son came as the heir and protested it. Rami bar Chama thought to say that the son stands in place of his mother and has rights to protest the sale, but Rava said to him: Granted that the son did not accept upon himself acharayus against her protest, אחריות דידיה מי לא קביל – but did he not accept upon himself a guarantee against his own protest? Surely, this was understood, and if he protested, he must refund the money.
