Kesubos - Daf 94
- מי שהיה נשוי ארבע נשים ומת
The Mishnah on the bottom of Daf 93b stated: מי שהיה נשוי ד' נשים ומת – If one was married to four wives and died, הראשונה קודמת לשניה – the first wife takes precedence over the second in collecting her kesubah from the estate, the second wife takes precedence over the third, the third one over the fourth, and each one must swear to the one that follows her, והרביעית נפרעת שלא בשבועה – and the fourth wife collects without a shavuah. Ben Nannas says: וכי מפני שהיא אחרונה נשכרת – Because she is the last wife should she profit? Rather, she too may not collect without a shavuah. The Gemara asks what the point of dispute between them is, and Shmuel said: כגון שנמצאת אחת מהן שדה שאינה שלו – Our Mishnah refers to a case where it was found that one of the fields distributed to the three earlier wives was not the husband’s. It is expected that the real owner will claim it from the wife that holds it. Ben Nannas requires the fourth wife to swear to the one who will lose the field, that she was not paid while her husband was alive. They disagree בבעל חוב מאוחר שקדם וגבה – on a later baal chov who came before an earlier baal chov and collected. The Tanna Kamma holds מה שגבה לא גבה – what he collected is not regarded as collected. Therefore, what the fourth wife collected must be given to the earlier wife. Ben Nannas holds מה שגבה גבה – what he collected is collected, and the earlier baal chov cannot take it. Therefore, the fourth wife must swear. Two more explanations for the machlokes are brought.
- האי תרי אחי ותרי שותפי דאית להו דינא בהדי חד
Rav Huna said: האי תרי אחי ותרי שותפי דאית להו דינא בהדי חד – Two brothers, who share an inheritance, or two partners who have litigation with another person regarding shared property, and one of the brothers or partners went to Beis Din and lost the case, the other brother or partner cannot say, את לאו בעל דברים דידי את – “You were not my litigant,” and therefore we should have a separate trial. Rather, the other brother or partner acted as his shaliach in representing him in Beis Din. Rav Nachman attempts to bring a support for this ruling from our Mishnah, since it did not state that the first wife must swear as well to the third and fourth wife. Is it not because the second wife acted as the shaliach on behalf of those wives? The Gemara rejects the comparison, since in our Mishnah’s case, שבועה לאחד ושבועה למאה – a shavuah to one is as a shavuah to a hundred. Since the first wife would make the same shavuah to the third wife, the third wife gains nothing. Whereas in the case of the brothers or partners, the other partner can say, “Had I been in Beis Din I would have made a better argument.” Therefore, he can demand a new hearing. The Gemara qualifies this ruling and says it only applies if he was out of town. If he was present at the time of the hearing, he should have come then.
- The two shtars of Rami bar Chama and Mar Ukva bar Chama’s mother
The mother of Rami bar Chama wrote away her property to Rami bar Chama in the morning and then later that day wrote away her property to her other son, Mar Ukva bar Chama. Rav Sheishess decided that Rami bar Chama was the rightful owner, since his shtar was signed first, but Rav Nachman ruled that Mar Ukva bar Chama was the rightful owner. He explained that in his community they do not record the hours on a shtar, and therefore, Rami bar Chama’s shtar does not take precedence. Secondly, he did not divide the property, because שודא דדייני - when conflicting shtars are presented, the decision falls on the discretion of the judges, and he held that Mar Ukva was more beloved to his mother. Mar Ukva could overrule Rav Sheishess because he was an appointed dayan and Rav Sheishess was not, and Rav Sheishess erred in ruling that a shtar takes precedence based on hours.
