Question: What is the Mishnah teaching us when it says, "that on this condition he kept her (married)?" Even if he never wrote her Kesuvah she deserves a Kesuvah!

It cannot be that the Mishnah is telling us that because of this condition she is able to collect from land that was a lien to this Kesuvah even thought this document did not have a Kol (meaning people did not know about it).

She must not be able to collect from such property as the document is considered to have been written early. Allowing her to collect from the date of their marriage would mistakenly mean she could collect from property he sold before she converted or property the caretaker of the youth sold before he became an adult.

Answer: The Mishnah is teaching us that if he married her when she was a virgin, although when he becomes older or converts she does not have this status, even so she deserves a Kesuvah of two hundred. This is because "on this condition he kept her," that whenever she becomes older or converts it will be considered as the beginning of her marriage when she indeed was a virgin (and she should receive two hundred).

Implied Question: The second part of the Mishnah states a case where the second wife and her inheritors come before the inheritors of the first wife. The Gemara holds that it is obvious that in such a case, even if the inheritors of the first wife grab the assets we take it out of their hands and give it back to the second wife. [Accordingly, why does the Gemara infer from the first part of the Mishnah which states a case where the first wife is entitled to the assets before the second wife, that if the second wife grabs the assets we do not take them away from her?]

Answer: This is not difficult, as one can answer that the Mishnah indeed implied this with the terminology of "Kodmin" - "is first" in the beginning of the Mishnah. In the second part of the Mishnah it therefore used the same terminology, even though it did not mean to imply that the inheritors of the first wife can grab and retain the assets.

Question: What kind of logic is there in this law? Let the second creditor be no more than a purchaser of assets that were on lien to the first creditor. The law is that a creditor is allowed to seize such properties from a buyer. He should also, therefore, be able to seize the assets from the second creditor!

Answer: The Rashbam answers that the second creditor is better than a purchaser. This is in order that the door should not be shut in front of people who need loans (and who already have other creditors). The bearer of a Kesuvah also has an edge as we let women collect Kesuvos (according to some opinions, see 84a) before other creditors in order that women in general should feel secure in their ability to actually collect their Kesuvos (see Maharam Shif).

One might say that this would stop people from being the first to lend someone money as they know that later creditors might seize the borrower's assets and will be left with nothing. However, this is incorrect as the first borrower will merely try to ensure that he is the first one to the assets in case the borrower does not have enough money to pay his creditors. He will therefore not refrain from lending money.

If we would say that the second creditor could not retain what he seizes from the borrower's assets then noone else would lend to a borrower after the first loan. This is because they would know that they would not be first in line if the borrower's assets are to be given to creditors.

Implied Question: In Erchin (7b), the Gemara states that if someone had five Sela'im and he said "my worth is upon me (to give to Hekdesh)" twice, and he gave four Sela'im for the second time and one for the first time that he has fulfilled both vows.

The Gemara there explains that this is because of the concept that if a later creditor seizes assets before an earlier creditor, he may keep what he has collected.

This means that when he gave four Sela'im for the first vow he fulfilled the Pasuk "whatever (his) hand can afford" (Vayikra 27:8), as he couldn't give the full five Sela'im he owned because he also had to pay for his first vow.

Similarly, when he gave one Sela for his first vow he also fulfilled his vow, because this too is "whatever he can afford" (ibid.), being that he has no more money as he gave that for his first vow, and whatever he gave towards the second vow is deemed collected. The same law would apply if he gave one Sela towards his second vow and four Sela'im towards his first vow.

It is apparent from this Gemara in Erchin (7b) that the concept of having a second collector being able to collect is effective even when the reason we gave above, that it will stop lenders from lending, is inapplicable.

Later, the Rach asks based on the Gemara's apparent conclusion that everyone agrees that whatever he has collected he must give back, but yet the Gemara also seems to say that whatever he collected is valid!

First Answer: He answers that regarding Hekdesh we definitely say that whatever has been collected is collected. This is because everything goes to Hekdesh anyway.

Second Answer: Alternatively, he answers that regarding movable objects everyone agrees that whatever the second creditors collected is considered collected. However, regarding property we indeed say that whatever they collect is not deemed collected.

Question: The Gemara in Bava Kama (33b) states that if the creditors of a person who owns an ox that gored and damaged someone try to collect the ox, whether the owner owed them money before it gored or only afterwards, their collection is invalid.

The Gemara there asks that it is understood if the animal damaged before the creditor was owed money that the collection is invalid, as the person who was damaged is the first one to have a lien on the ox. However, if the creditor was owed money before the damage was done the creditor should be the first to get the money! Moreover, even if the damage was done before the money was owed, if the creditor collects the money the collection should be valid!

The Gemara continues to ask that the Beraisa seems to indicate that a later creditor cannot keep what he collected. Although the Gemara gives an answer that one generally can keep what they collected, by merely asking the question the Gemara implies that this law applies equally to land and movable objects (unlike the second answer of the Rach above).

Answer: This is not a difficult question, as a Shor Tam that damages is considered like property. This is like the Gemara in Bava Kama (ibid.) states that because it becomes known that it gores, the ox is called "a goring ox." [Accordingly, people know about it before they lend the borrower money, and know they will not be able to collect from it before a different creditor.]

Observation: Rabeinu Tam used to similarly explain that the second creditor may keep what he has collected from movable objects. We say that our Mishnah is based on the opinion of Rebbi Meir who holds that movable objects can be a lien for a Kesuvah.

Rabeinu Tam similarly explains that this that the Gemara concluded that what the second creditors collect is an invalid collection is referring specifically to Kesuvah and creditors that never thought that their lien is on this property (as it was already on lien).

However, movable objects that they indeed had in mind to collect from cannot be taken away from them once they have seized them.

Additionally, the Gemara later (94a) that tries to conclude that Ben Nanas and the Rabbanan argue regarding whether or not what the second creditor has seized is a valid collection is only regarding movable objects. However, no Tana ever entertained that a similar collection of land would be valid.

We therefore must conclude that the answer to the contradiction between our Gemara that concludes that what was collected is invalid and the Gemara in Erchin (7b) that states that what was collected is valid must be that Hekdesh is different.

We cannot answer that Erchin is talking about movable objects (which can therefore be collected), as our Gemara later also discusses movable objects.

It is also possible to answer that the Gemara in Erchin might reason the second obligation can be collected because it is dealing with a debt incurred only by word of mouth, not recorded on a document. The Gemara there might hold that a regular debt discussed in the Torah is not considered to be as if it written in a document.

Retraction: Rabeinu Tam later retracted his original answer. This is because Rebbi Meir himself holds that the movable objects of orphans are not on lien to a Kesuvah, as proved earlier in Tosfos (81b, DH "Rebbi Meir" and paragraph (h) above).

Rabeinu Tam's Second Opinion: Rabeinu Tam explains that the Gemara is indeed talking about property. When our Gemara says that we see from here that the collection is valid it is giving the opinion of Ben Nanas according to Shmuel (94a), who states later that Ben Nanas argues on the Rabbanan regarding whether or not the collection of the second creditor is valid.

Despite the fact that the first creditor can collect his debt from purchasers (and this second creditor should not be better than a purchaser), a creditor is different as we explained earlier, in order that the door should not be shut to borrowers (see paragraph (b) above).

Tosfos' Conclusion: I think that the first answer of Rabeinu Tam is correct, that the Gemara here is talking about movable objects. It is in accordance with the opinion of Rebbi Tarfon who says earlier (84a) that if someone dies and leaves a loan or deposited an item in the hands of others, it should be given to the weakest collector (seemingly meaning any creditor bearing a Kesuvah, see Maharsha).

However, this answer is admittedly difficult according to the opinion that concludes that it must be that whatever second creditors collect is invalid. The conclusion seems uncertain, as the Mishnah might possibly be talking about land that according to everyone cannot be collected.

Question: This conclusion seems difficult. On the contrary, being that the Mishnah didn't say in the first case that if the second wife grabbed the assets we take it our of her hands, it must be that if she did do so the collection is valid!

Answer: Rebbi answers that it is more logical that it should have stated that we do not take it out of her hands, so we should not mistakenly say that the terminology of "Kodmin"-"they are first" means that the other collector's collection is invalid. We would assume this because this is indeed how the terminology is used at the end of the Mishnah.

Explanation: This inference is based on the Mishnah's usage of the word "Kodmin" - "take precedence (over)." If the inheritors of the first wife would receive nothing, it should have said the second wife and her inheritors "Lokchin" - "take" and not the inheritors of the first wife.

Implied Question: Even though regarding inheritance the Mishnah states that a son is "Kodem" to a daughter, and we know that this means the son inherits everything while the daughter gets nothing (our Mishnah's inference is still correct).

Answer: In our case where there is more room to make a mistake, the Mishnah should have made sure to write the exact terminology. [This is as opposed to inheritance where everyone knows the son inherits everything before a daughter. The Mishnah therefore did not have to use exact terminology in that case.]

Implied Question: This might not seem like a good inference, as it is solely relying on something the Mishnah did not say (as opposed to something implied in its words).

Answer: In this case the omission is significant, and it should have been stated in the Mishnah.

Observation: This question is technically unnecessary, as the original question (that the Mishnah could be referring to inheritance, not Kesuvah) is able to push away all of the three inferences made by the Gemara.