Bava Basra - Daf 132
- One who wrote all his property to his wife, and then the husband’s debtor came to collect it
A Baraisa teaches that if one writes all his properties to his wife (in a case where the gift takes effect, as the Gemara will explain), and then someone produced a שטר חוב against the husband’s property (which preceded the gift, but not the kesubah), Rebbe Eliezer says: תקרע מתנתה – she “rips up” her gift, ותעמוד על כתובתה – and stands upon her kesubah. Meaning, he holds she never relinquished her kesubah’s שיעבוד on the land; the gift only enhanced her rights. Here, where she would lose the gift (to the preceding debt), she may still collect it for her preceding kesubah. The Chochomim say: תקרע כתובתה ותעמוד על מתנתה – she “rips up” her kesubah (i.e., she did relinquish her שיעבוד when she received the gift) and can only stand upon her gift; ונמצאת קרחת מכאן ומכאן – and since the debt precedes her gift, she is “found bald” from here and from there (i.e., she loses on both sides).
- Someone heard his son died in מדינת הים, and wrote away his possessions, and his son returned
Rav Nachman ruled like the Chochomim’s view above, that a woman who was given all her husband’s assets relinquished her kesubah’s שיעבוד on his assets. The Gemara asks, does this mean that Rav Nachman does not follow אומדנא – our assessment of one’s mindset, which would presumably be that she does not relinquish her שיעבוד? But a Baraisa states that if one’s son traveled abroad, and his father heard he died, and wrote his entire estate to others, after which his son returned, the Tanna Kamma says the gift remains valid, but Rebbe Shimon ben Menasya says: אין מתנתו מתנה – his gift is not valid, שאילו היה יודע שבנו קיים לא כתבן – for had he known his son would return, he would not have written [his possessions] away. Rav Nachman rules like Rebbe Shimon ben Menasya, showing that he does follow the אומדנא of the person’s mindset!? The Gemara answers that the assessment in the first case can be made differently: דניחא לה דתיפוק עלה קלא – for she is pleased that word should go out about her דכתבינהו ניהלה להנהו נכסים – that [her husband] wrote these properties to her, demonstrating his trust and respect for her.
- A wife relinquishing her kesubah’s שיעבוד where the husband wrote his properties to his sons
A Mishnah states that if one wrote his properties to his sons, וכתב לאשתו קרקע כל שהוא – and wrote to his wife land of even minimal size, אבדה כתובתה – she forfeited her kesubah’s שיעובד on the property given to the sons. Amoraim offer three interpretations why this is so: (1) The case is במזכה להן על ידה – where he transferred the property to [his sons] through her acquiring it on their behalf. By facilitating the transfer, she showed her approval (where she also received some land). (2) He distributed the estate before her, and she did not protest. (3) He said, “Take this land for your kesubah,” and she did not protest. However, these interpretations are all disproven from the סיפא, where Rebbe Yose says: אם קבלה עליה – if she verbally accepted the loss of her שיעבוד, אף על פי שלא כתב לה – even if he did not write any land to her, she forfeited her kesubah’s שיעבוד. This proves the Tanna Kamma requires both כתיבה – writing her property and קבלה – her verbal acceptance. Rav Nachman rules like Rebbe Yose that either is sufficient and explains: כיון שעשאה שותף בין הבנים – since he made her a partner among the sons by giving her property, אבדה כתובתה – she forfeited her kesubah’s שיעבוד.
