סקר
כמה זמן אתה כבר גולש בפורטל הדף היומי






 

Steinsaltz

and here they disagree about a dinar’s worth of real estate: One Sage, the first tanna, holds that if the surplus was in the form of real estate, meaning that there was sufficient real estate to cover the sums specified in the marriage contracts and one dinar’s worth of land was still left over, then yes, each can claim his mother’s marriage contract, but if the surplus of the dinar was only in movable property, then no, they cannot; and one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that the heirs may claim the marriage contracts even if the surplus is in movable property.

The Gemara asks: But how can you say that? Didn’t we learn in the mishna (91a) that Rabbi Shimon says: Even if there is property that does not serve as a guarantee for a loan, i.e., movable property, it is considered as nothing, unless there is property that serves as a guarantee for a loan with a promissory note, i.e., land, exceeding the value of the two marriage contracts by at least one additional dinar.

Rather, here they disagree about a dinar of liened property: One Sage, the first tanna, holds that if the surplus was in the form of unsold property, then yes, each can claim the sum specified in his mother’s marriage contract, but if the surplus was only in liened property then no, he cannot. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that it is deemed a surplus even if it was in the form of liened property.

The Gemara asks: If that is so, the baraita should not have stated Rabbi Shimon’s opinion using the conditional: Rabbi Shimon says: If there is a surplus of a dinar. In this case such a surplus certainly exists, and therefore it should have said: Since there is a surplus of a dinar.

Rather, the dispute can be explained differently: They disagree about a case where there is less than a dinar of surplus: One Sage, the first tanna, holds that if the surplus was worth a dinar, then yes, each can claim his mother’s marriage contract, but if it was less than a dinar then no, he cannot. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that it is deemed a surplus even if it was less than a dinar.

The Gemara asks: But Rabbi Shimon said: If there is a surplus of a dinar, and not less. And if you would say: Reverse the interpretation of the opinion of the first tanna in the baraita cited above, that would be unacceptable, because the first tanna of the mishna (91a), who is presumably identical to the first tanna of the baraita, also said that the surplus must be at least one dinar.

The Gemara concludes: Rather, the dispute in the baraita must be explained according to those first two formulations cited above, that they disagree about a surplus in movable property or about a surplus in liened property. And reverse the interpretation of the opinion of the first tanna, so that he holds that the sons of the first wife may collect her marriage settlement if there is a surplus in their father’s estate of one dinar worth of movable property or liened property, whereas Rabbi Shimon holds that there must be a surplus of one dinar worth of land that is not liened.

Mar Zutra said in the name of Rav Pappa: The halakha in the case where one wife died in his lifetime and one died following his death is that the sons of the first wife are entitled to the collect the marriage contract concerning male children, and furthermore, that one marriage contract becomes surplus for the other.

The Gemara wonders: Granted, if Mar Zutra would have taught us only that in a case where one wife died in his lifetime and one died following his death, the sons of the first wife are entitled to collect the marriage contract concerning male children, and he would not have taught us that one marriage contract becomes surplus for the other, I would say that if there is a surplus of a dinar after the payment of both marriage settlements, then yes, the sons of the first wife can claim their mother’s marriage settlement, but if not, then no, they cannot.

However, let him teach us only that one marriage contract becomes surplus for the other, and I would know that it is due to the fact that if one wife died in his lifetime and one died following his death, the sons of the first wife are entitled to claim payment of the marriage contract concerning male children.

The Gemara answers: If he would have taught us only that, that a marriage contract can serve as a surplus, I would say that this applies specifically in a case where an individual married three women, and two of them died in his lifetime and one after his death, and that wife who died after his death had given birth to a daughter but no sons, and the daughter does not inherit any part of the estate. Although the daughter is entitled to be sustained from her father’s estate, she has no claim to a share in the inheritance. Consequently, there is no concern for quarreling, as all the heirs are in the same situation.

However, in a case where one wife died in his lifetime and one died after his death, where the one who died after his death had given birth to a son who is suing for his portion of the estate, one could say that there is a concern about quarreling arising from the complaints of the son of the second wife. Therefore, Mar Zutra mentions both halakhot explicitly in order to teach us that this concern is not taken into account.

MISHNA: In the case of one who was married to two women and the women died, and subsequently he died, and the orphans of one of the wives are now seeking to collect the payment specified in their mother’s marriage contract, i.e., the marriage contract concerning male children, but there is only enough in the estate to pay the value of the two marriage contracts, the marriage contract concerning male children cannot be collected, and the sons distribute the estate equally among themselves according to the biblical laws of inheritance.

If there was a surplus of a dinar left there, in the estate, beyond the value of the two marriage contracts, then these sons collect their mother’s marriage contract and those sons collect their mother’s marriage contract, and the remaining property valued at a dinar is divided equally among all the sons.

If the orphans who are entitled to receive the marriage settlement of greater value say: We inflate the value of our father’s property by a dinar, i.e., we agree to evaluate the property we will receive for our mother’s marriage settlement at a value higher than the market value so that there will be a dinar left in the estate after the two marriage contracts have been paid, so that they can collect their mother’s marriage contract, the court does not listen to them. Rather, the value of the property is appraised in court, and the distribution of the estate is based on that evaluation.

If there was potential inheritance there, meaning that there was no surplus of a dinar in the existing properties of the estate, but there was property that was expected to be paid to the estate and which would increase the overall value of the estate so that there would be a surplus of a dinar after the payment of the marriage contracts, these properties are not considered to be in the possession of the estate in determining the total value of the estate.

Rabbi Shimon says: Even if there is property that does not serve as guarantee for a loan, i.e., movable property, there in the estate, it does not have any impact on the value of the estate. The marriage contracts concerning male children are not collected unless there is property that serves as a guarantee, i.e., land, exceeding the value of the two marriage contracts by at least one additional dinar.

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: If this wife had a marriage contract valued at one thousand dinars and that wife had a marriage contract valued at five hundred dinars, if there is a surplus of one dinar, then these sons collect their mother’s marriage contract and those sons collect their mother’s marriage contract. And if not, they divide the inheritance equally.

The Gemara notes: It is obvious that if there were abundant properties, i.e., there was a surplus of a dinar above the value of the two marriage settlements at the time of the man’s death, but they depreciated before the sons collected the marriage settlements, the heirs have already acquired rights to the marriage settlements. However, what is the halakha if the estate’s holdings were few, i.e., there was no surplus at the time of the man’s death, but they appreciated before the sons divided the estate, so that there was a surplus? Do the sons collect the mothers’ marriage settlements?

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a solution based upon the following case: The properties of the house of bar Tzartzur were few, i.e., there was no surplus beyond his wives’ marriage settlements, and they appreciated. The sons of the two wives came before Rav Amram to discuss the matter. He said to the sons of the wife who had the more valuable marriage contract: Go appease the sons of the other wife and give them some of your share. They did not heed his advice.

He said to them: If you will not appease them, I will strike you with a thorn [silva] that does not draw blood, i.e., I will excommunicate you. He sent them before Rav Naḥman. Rav Naḥman said to them: Just as the halakha is that if the properties were abundant but depreciated,

Talmud - Bavli - The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren No=C3=A9 Talmud
with commentary by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz Even-Israel (CC-BY-NC 4.0)
© כל הזכויות שמורות לפורטל הדף היומי | אודות | צור קשר | הוספת תכנים | רשימת תפוצה | הקדשה | תרומות | תנאי שימוש באתר | מפת האתר