The first Gemara after the mishnah wants to make a diyuk from the fact that it teaches "kodemet" rather than "yesh lah-ein lah". Why? Seemingly, this is just the appropriate language in a case where there is enough money for the first ketubah and partially for the second. This is "kodemet" and not "yesh lah-ein lah". Reading Rashi, it gets even worse: he says that the mishna must speak about a case where there is only one ketubah. Why? What about one and a half?
Does this imply that if one would get only a half of the ketubah then she doesn't get it at all? All or nothing?
Binyomin Zeev Szanto-Varnagy, Budapest, Hungary
Ein Lah is a more absolute term, compared with Kodemes which signifies that even the wife that comes second has a Zechus, but her Zechus is secondary. This is evident from Rashi (DH mi'd'Katani) who explains that we must be talking in a case where there are not sufficient funds for both Kesuvos. Rashi is saying this because the word Kodemes would seem to imply that both receive payment, just that one precedes the other. Rashi says that this is not a possible option, and we must be talking in a case where there are insufficient funds for both Kesuvos. If so, why does the Mishanah use the term Kodemes? The Gemara says that this is to teach us that even though one wife does is unable to claim her Kesuvoh, this does not mean that she has completely lost her rights to her Kesuvo, and if she takes the money before the other wife she can keep it.
Rashi does not mean to say that there is enough for one and not more or less than one. There is certainly no reason why a woman should not get at least part of her Kesuvo if only a part is available. Rashi means to say that there is only enough for one whole Kesuvo and not two whole Kesuvos, although there may be one and a bit as well.