KESUVOS 91 - Dedicated in memory of Irene Edelstein, by Josh Rebbi Danziger of Cliffside Park, New Jersey.


Tosfos DH "u'Mar Savar"

תוס' ד"ה "ומר סבר"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explain why the Gemara didn't ask a good question on this explanation of the Beraisa.)

פי' ר"ש


Explanation: Rebbi Shimon, according to this explanation, holds that even movable objects is enough.

וקשה לי אם יש שם מותר דינר כיון שיש שם מותר דינר מיבעי ליה כדפריך בסמוך


Question: This is difficult, as it doesn't fit into Rebbi Shimon's statement "if there is a Mosar Dinar." If Rebbi Shimon's point is that he argues on the Tana Kama that even movable objects are good, he should (at least) say "because there is a Mosar Dinar."

וי"ל דעדיפא מינה פריך


Answer: The Gemara asks a better question instead.


Tosfos DH "Ela Hacha"

תוס' ד"ה "אלא הכא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos notes that the question of the previous Tosfos is now stronger.)

והשתא בעי למימר דלר"ש ודאי סגי בפחות מדינר


Explanation: It must be that the Gemara is currently understanding that according to Rebbi Shimon even less than a Dinar is fine.

ותימה א"כ הדרא קשיא לדוכתיה אם יש שם כיון שיש שם מיבעי ליה


Question: This is difficult, as now the question asked in the previous Tosfos returns. If Rebbi Shimon's point is that he argues on the Tana Kama that even less than a Dinar is valid, he should (at least) say "because there is a Mosar Dinar" not "if there is a Mosar Dinar." [The Gemara itself asks later that this answer is generally difficult as the Beraisa says that there is a Mosar Dinar, not that there isn't a Mosar Dinar.]


Tosfos DH "v'Chi Teima"

תוס' ד"ה "וכי תימא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos quotes different opinions regarding the correct text of our Gemara in light of the Gemara's current answer.)

פ"ה ובניה של זו דקאמר ת"ק אבני ראשונה קאי


Rashi's Opinion: Rashi explains that when the Beraisa earlier states "and this one's sons" it refers to the sons of the first wife.

משמע מתוך פירושו דל"ג לעיל באים בניה של זו לאחר מיתת אמן דמשמע בהדיא דאבני שניה קאי אלא גרס בניה של זו לאחר מיתה


Rashi's explanation implies that he does not have the text earlier "this one's sons come after the death of their mother" as this would clearly imply that it is talking about the sons of the second wife. Rashi therefore must have the text "this one's sons after death."

וקשה דבכל הספרים גרסינן ליה


Questions on Rashi: This is difficult, as this text is found in all of our editions of the Gemara.

ועוד אי אבני ראשונה קאי מה לו להזכיר לאחר מיתה פשיטא דבאין דקאמר לאחר מיתה דהא מתה קתני


Additionally, if the Beraisa is referring to the first mother's children, why even say the words "after death" at all? Of course it is referring to sometime after her death, as the Beraisa started off by saying that she died!

ועוד קשה לי דהואיל ובעי למימר איפוך הוה ליה לאסוקי פלוגתייהו בכתובה נעשית מותר לחברתה


Moreover, once the Gemara has to say the opinions should be reversed, they should have just said that their argument is regarding whether or not one of the Kesuvos can act as the Mosar for its fellow Kesuvah (as implied by Rebbi Shimon's statement).

i. ועוד גרסינן בפירוש ר"ח בהדיא באין בניה של שניה לאחר מיתה


Additionally, the Rach explicitly has the text "the children of the second wife come after her death."

על כן פי' ר"ת אבני שניה קאי לעולם ואיפוך סברתייהו


Rabeinu Tam's Opinion: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that the Beraisa's statement is referring to the (children of the) second mother. The logic of the Tana Kama and Rebbi Shimon is merely reversed (from the Gemara's previous thought).

דת"ק דאמר באין בני שניה ולוקחין כתובת אמן והראשונים אין להם כשאין להם מותר כלל אבל אם היה שם מותר אפילו בפחות מדינר יש להן כתובת בנין דכרין


The Tana Kama says that the sons of the second wife come and take the Kesuvah of their mother, while the first wife's children receive nothing when there is no Mosar. If there was money leftover, even if it was less than a Dinar they would receive a Kesuvas Banin Dichrin. [See below regarding where this is implied in the Beraisa.]

ואתא ר"ש למימר דוקא אם יש שם מותר דינר ומדרבי שמעון נשמע לת"ק דמדקאמ' אם יש שם משמע לדקדק דברי ת"ק כשאין שם מותר כלל קאמר דוקא


Rebbi Shimon argues that only if there is a Mosar Dinar do the sons of the first wife receive a Kesuvas Banin Dichrin. Once we see this is the opinion of Rebbi Shimon, we can fully understand the opinion of the Tana Kama (as we explained above). Being that Rebbi Shimon said "If there is (a Mosar Dinar)," it implies that the Tana Kama means that only when there is no Mosar at all will the sons of the first wife not collect a Kesuvah.


Tosfos DH "Ki Hanach"

תוס' ד"ה "כי הנך"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos plugs the Gemara's current answer into its previous answer as he explained it in the previous Tosfos.)

וכדפרישית דת"ק אמר בני שניה גובין ולא בני ראשונה כשאין שם מותר כלל אבל ממטלטלי או ממשעבדי נוטלין


Explanation: This is as we explained (the argument) beforehand. The Tana Kama says that the sons of the second wife collect their Kesuvah, while the first one's do not collect when there is no leftover money at all. However, they can collect from movable objects or assets that were on lien (even less than a Dinar).

ואתא ר"ש למימר דוקא דינר מקרקעי ובני חרי


Rebbi Shimon comes to say that there must be a Mosar Dinar from land and from property free of a lien.



Tosfos DH "Kach Mu'atin"

תוס' ד"ה "כך מועטין"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos defines and explains the Gemara's conclusion.)

פי' בקונטרס וחולקין בשוה וכן פי' ר"ח


First Explanation: Rashi and the Rach explain that this means that the inheritors split the money.

ואע"ג דבריש מי שמת (ב"ב דף קלט: ושם) גבי נכסים מועטים דהבנות יזונו והבנים ישאלו על הפתחים אמרינן דבין מועטין ונתרבו בין מרובין ונתמעטו יד הבנים על העליונה והבנים ירשו והבנות יזונו


Implied Question: The Gemara in Bava Basra (139b), however, states that when there are few assets to the estate the daughters should be supported and the sons should beg for their food. The Gemara there qualifies this by saying that in a case where the assets were few (when the father died) and later increased, or where they were many and decreased the sons have the upper hand and inherit while the daughters are merely supported.

ולא אמרינן מועטים ונתרבו כבר זכו בהן הבנות כדאמר הכא דזכו בני כתובה הקטנה לחלוק בשוה


We do not say that if the assets were originally very few and they later increased that the daughters already acquired their right to be supported without the sons inheriting. This is seemingly unlike the conclusion in our Gemara that the sons of the wife that have the smaller Kesuvah divide the estate equally when there originally was not a Mosar Dinar.

היינו משום דבכל דוכתא אזלינן טפי בתר נחלה דאורייתא


Answer: This is because we always try to arrange that the inheritance should be in accordance with Torah law over an arrangement that is not prescribed by the Torah (that the daughters should receive support and the sons not receive anything).

ועוד מפרש רבי כשם שמרובין ונתמעטו זכו בהן יורשין פי' בני כתובה גדולה כך מועטין ונתרבו זכו בהן יורשין בני כתובה גדולה


Second Explanation: Rebbi explains that our Gemara means to say the following. Just as in the case where there originally was a Mosar Dinar and the assets decreased the inheritors with the bigger Kesuvah receive their portion, so too when there is originally not a Mosar Dinar and the assets later increased, the inheritors with the bigger Kesuvah receive their portion.

1. ואע"ג דאזלינן הכא בתר תקנתא דרבנן טפי מהתם


Implied Question: At first glance this might seem difficult, as this would mean that we are seemingly going after a Rabbinic solution here more than in the Gemara in Bava Basra (ibid.), where we did not neglect basic Torah law that sons should split inheritance.

משום דאע"ג דאזלינן בתר תקנתא דרבנן הכא לא מיעקר נחלה דאורייתא


Answer: Although this is true, we are not uprooting Torah inheritance altogether (as sons are inheriting).

אבל התם אי אזלת בתר תקנתא דרבנן מיעקר לגמרי נחלה דאורייתא ולא ירשו הבנים כלל


However, if we would go after the Rabbinic solution we would totally uproot Torah inheritance and sons would not inherit at all.


Tosfos DH "Mai Peseida"

תוס' ד"ה "מאי פסידא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how the argument in our Gemara between Rami bar Chama and Rava is the basis for an argument in Bava Metzia 110b).

מכאן רגילין לומר דהא דמסקינן בהמקבל (ב"מ קי: ושם) הניחא למ"ד אי אית ליה זוזי ללוקח לא מצי לסלוקי בזוזי אלא למ"ד מצי לסלק כו' היינו פלוגתא דרמי בר חמא ורבא


Observation: This is the source of the famous claim that an argument described in Bava Metzia (110b) is actually that of Rami bar Chama and Rava in our Gemara. The Gemara there states, "this is good according to the opinion that if the purchaser has money he cannot remove the creditor's claim with his money. However, according to the opinion that the buyer could remove the creditor with money etc." [Their argument is seemingly regarding a case where a creditor has a lien on a field that the borrower proceeds to sell, and the borrower defaults on the loan. The creditor typically has the right to seize the field from the purchaser. The argument is whether or not the purchaser has the right to give him the cash owed to him by the borrower instead of the field in a case where the creditor would rather have the field.]

דהכא רמי בר חמא ס"ל לא מצי לסלוקי לוקח ורבא סבר מצי לסלוקי


This is understandable, as in our Gemara Rami bar Chama holds that the purchaser cannot thwart the creditor while Rava says he can.

מיהו לרמי בר חמא ניחא אבל לרבא מנא לן דלמא הא דהוה הכא מצי לסלוקי משום שלא היה רוצה ליקח האפדנא אלא בה' מאות והלוקח רוצה לתת אלפא ולכך סילקו


Question: This is understandable according to the opinion of Rami bar Chama. However, it is unclear that this fits Rava's opinion. It is possible that Rava only said in our Gemara that the purchaser can remove the creditor with money because the purchaser is willing to pay twice the value of the field.

אבל היכא דרוצה הבעל חוב ליקח הקרקע באותם דמים שרוצה הלוקח לסלקו מצי למימר דמודה רבא דלא מצי לסלק


However, where the creditor wants the land at the same value that the purchaser is willing to pay for it, it is possible that Rava will agree that the purchaser cannot take precedence over the creditor by merely giving him the value of the land in cash.

וי"ל דמ"מ כל שעה יסלקנו שישום לו הקרקע כפלים על שוויו


Answer: The opinion in Bava Metzia (110b) stating that the purchaser can remove the creditor can still be Rava. This because the purchaser can always evaluate the land as being worth double its true value, and be willing to pay that amount. This might be the intent of the opinion stated in Bava Metzia (ibid.), which may indeed be that of Rava.


Tosfos DH "v'Hilchasa"

תוס' ד"ה "והלכתא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the reason for the Halachah.)

דלא חשבינן כמו שבח


Explanation: The field is not considered to have risen in value (the extra five hundred is merely what it is worth to the purchaser to currently keep it, and is not reflective of its true worth).


Tosfos DH "d'Zavnah l'Kesuvah"

תוס' ד"ה "דזבנה לכתובה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses the ramifications that the two explanations of Rashi have on selling future inheritance.)

מכאן נראה לר"ת דהא דאמר ביש נוחלין ובפ"ק דב"מ (דף טז. ושם) מה שאירש מאבא מכור לך לא אמר כלום הנ"מ כשאמר מה שאירש מאבא סתם אבל אם אמר שדה זו שאירש קנה ואפי' למ"ד אין אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם


Observation: Rabeinu Tam observes that our Gemara leads us to better understand the Gemaros in Bava Basra and Bava Kama that state that if a person sells his future inheritance from his father, the sale is invalid. Based on our Gemara, Rabeinu Tam concludes that these Gemaros must only be referring to a case where he said "whatever I will inherit from my father." However, if he said "this field that I will inherit," the sale is valid. This is even true according to the opinion that a person cannot give over for acquisition something that is not yet extant.

דאי לאו הכי היאך מכר כל עיקר כתובת אמו דהיינו מה שאירש מאימא ללשון ראשון שפי' רש"י שהיתה אמו נשואה לבעל


First Proof: Otherwise, how could the person in our Gemara have sold his mother's Kesuvah? According to Rashi's first explanation in the Gemara, this refers to his mother's Kesuvah when she is still married.

ולכך קאמר בטובת הנאה דמשמע שאם תמות יירשנה בעל או אפי' ימות בעלה בחייה שמא ימות גם הבן בחייה ואין ללוקח בה כלום


This is why the Gemara's case is where he sells it for a pittance. This implies that if his mother would die, her husband would inherit her anyway (and he would not have to pay her Kesuvah). Even if he would die first, perhaps her son would die in her lifetime and the purchaser would therefore not gain anything (as he is only selling that which he will inherit from his mother).

הלכך ודאי במקום שהוא מכיר את המכר הוי מקח קיים דאין סברא לומר דהא אתי כמ"ד אדם מקנה דשלב"ל דהא קי"ל דאין אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם


Accordingly, where he knows exactly what he is selling it must be that this type of sale is valid. It does not make sense to say that these Gemaros are in accordance with the opinion that a person can sell something that is not yet extant, as we rule that this is incorrect.

ומיהו ללשון אחר שפירש רש"י אין ראיה מכאן כלום דפירש דזבנה לכתובתה דאימא שדה שייחד אביו לאמו לכתובתה ומת ונפלו נכסים לפני זה


Observation: However, according to Rashi's second explanation of our Gemara there is no proof. Rashi's second explanation of our Gemara is that he sold a field that his father had set aside to cover his mother's Kesuvah in case of his death. He indeed died, and his son inherited him.

וכל זמן שלא עמדה בדין אם מכרה זה המכר קיים ואינו יכול לחזור שהרי יורש הוא וכל הנכסים לפניו אלא שחייב לתת כתובה לאמו כשתתבענו


As long as she did not demand her Kesuvah in Beis Din, if the son sells the field the sale is valid and he cannot normally retract the sale, as he is a full-fledged inheritor. He just has an obligation to honor his mother's Kesuvah when she demands that he do so.

ועל שדה זו שעבודה מוטל והיא יכולה לטורפה מיד הלוקח ומשום דא"ל האי אי אתיא אימא ומערערא לא מפצינא לך ותפסיד מעותיך לא מכרה אלא בדבר מועט


Her Kesuvah has a lien on this field, meaning that she can take it away from the purchaser. This is why her son told the purchaser, "if my mother comes and complains that the field should really be hers I will not reimburse you, and you will lose your money." This is also why he only sold it for a pittance.

ולפי לשון ראשון נמי לאו ראיה כמו שפירש רש"י


According to the first explanation in Rashi there is also no proof to support Rabeinu Tam's statement, as Rashi himself explained (that the Gemara is dealing with having to return the money, not the validity of the sale, see Maharsha).

עוד מייתי ראיה מדאמר בשילהי מי שמת (ב"ב קנט. ושם) בן שמכר בנכסי אביו בחיי אביו ומת בנו מוציא מיד הלקוחות ומ"ט משום דמכח אבוה דאבא קאתינא


Second Proof: Rabeinu Tam further proves this concept from a Gemara in Bava Basra (159a). The Gemara states that if a son sold his own rights to his father's property in his father's lifetime, and the son died before his father, his son (the property owner's grandson) can take those fields away from the people who purchased the fields. Why? He inherits his grandfather directly (without receiving the inheritance through his father).

והשתא בלאו האי טעמא נמי הא אין המכר קיים כלל אלא התם ודאי בשדה זו שאירש מאבא איירי שבירר המכר (וע"ע תוס' יבמות סו: ד"ה הבעל)


It would seem that if a person cannot sell the rights to his future inheritance, the Gemara did not have to bother stating the reason that he inherits his grandfather directly. It must be that the sale was valid because the son stated that he was selling a specific field that he was poised to inherit from his father (before his apparently untimely death).