תָּנָא נַמִי הָרִאשׁוֹנָה קוֹדֶמֶת לַשְּׁנִיָּה.

it taught the first clause as well with the same wording: The first woman precedes the second, without elaborating that the property would not be expropriated from the second if she were to seize it in payment of her marriage contract.

״נָשָׂא אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה״. שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ תְּלָת; שְׁמַע מִינָּהּ: אַחַת בְּחַיָּיו וְאַחַת בְּמוֹתוֹ יֵשׁ לָהֶן כְּתוּבַּת בְּנִין דִּכְרִין, וְלָא חָיְישִׁינַן לְאִינְצוּיֵי.

§ The mishna taught: If he married the first woman, etc. The Gemara notes: Conclude three conclusions from this statement: Conclude from it that if one of the man’s wives died in his lifetime and the other one died following his death, then the sons of the first wife are entitled to collect the marriage contract concerning male children and we are not concerned that this would lead to quarreling.

מִמַּאי – מִדְּקָתָנֵי: שְׁנִיָּה וְיוֹרְשֶׁיהָ קוֹדְמִים לְיוֹרְשֵׁי רִאשׁוֹנָה. מִיקְדָּם הוּא דְּקָדְמִי, הָא אִיכָּא – שָׁקְלִי.

The Gemara asks: From where is it known that this is correct? From the fact that it teaches: The second wife and her heirs precede the heirs of the first wife, it can be inferred that they precede the heirs of the first, but if there are enough funds in the estate for all the claims against it, then the children of the first wife do take their share of the dowry.

וּשְׁמַע מִינָּהּ: כְּתוּבָּה נַעֲשֵׂית מוֹתָר לַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ.

The second point one can conclude from it is that one marriage contract becomes surplus for the other. The Sages ruled that each son may claim his mother’s marriage settlement only when the value of the estate exceeds the sum total of the marriage contracts by at least one dinar, so that the biblical laws of inheritance can be fulfilled. Since the marriage settlement collected by the heirs of the second wife is considered a debt owed by the estate, this sum is considered to have been paid equally by all the heirs. The biblical laws of inheritance have thereby been fulfilled, and the sons of the first wife can claim the marriage contract concerning male children even if nothing will be left in the estate after they have collected their payment.

מִמַּאי – מִדְּלָא קָתָנֵי: אִם יֵשׁ שָׁם מוֹתַר דִּינָר.

The Gemara asks: From where is it known that this is correct? The Gemara answers: From the fact that it does not teach in the mishna: If there is a surplus of a dinar in addition to the value of all the marriage contracts.

וּשְׁמַע מִינָּהּ: כְּתוּבַּת בְּנִין דִּכְרִין לָא טָרְפָה מִמְּשַׁעְבְּדֵי. דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתִּין טָרְפָה מִמְּשַׁעְבְּדֵי – לֵיתוּ בְּנֵי רִאשׁוֹנָה וְלִטְרְפִינְהוּ לִבְנֵי שְׁנִיָּה.

And conclude from it a third point, that when one collects the payment for the marriage contract concerning male children, he cannot seize liened property As, if it should enter your mind that it can be repossessed from liened property, then let the sons of the first wife come and repossess land already claimed by the sons of the second wife as payment for their mother’s marriage contract, since the land the sons of the second wife took was previously liened, due to the marriage contract of the first wife. Rather, the children of the first wife are viewed not as creditors but as heirs, who cannot repossess property sold by their father.

מַתְקִיף לָהּ רַב אַשִׁי: מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ: אַחַת בְּחַיָּיו וְאַחַת בְּמוֹתוֹ – אֵין לָהֶן כְּתוּבַּת בְּנִין דִּכְרִין, וּמַאי קוֹדְמִין – לְנַחֲלָה קָתָנֵי.

Rav Ashi objects to two of the three conclusions stated above: From where is it known that all of this is correct? Perhaps I could actually say to you that if one wife died in his lifetime and one died following his death, then no one is entitled to collect the marriage contract concerning male children. And what does the mishna mean when it says precede? It does not mean that if there are enough assets remaining, the sons of the first wife receive the sum of their mother’s marriage settlement. Rather, it is teaching that after the sons of the second wife receive the sum of their mother’s marriage settlement, the sons from both marriages inherit equal shares of the remaining estate.

וְכִי תֵּימָא: יוֹרְשֵׁי הָרִאשׁוֹנָה לָמָּה לִי – אַיְּידֵי דְּתָנָא שְׁנִיָּה וְיוֹרְשֶׁיהָ, תָּנָא נַמִי לְיוֹרְשֵׁי הָרִאשׁוֹנָה.

And if you would say that if the mishna is referring to the inheritance of the remainder of the estate, why do I need the mishna to mention the heirs of the first wife; since it is teaching a halakha concerning their inheritance from their father and not their inheritance from their mother, why refer to them as the heirs of the first wife? One could reply that since it taught: The second wife and her heirs, the mishna also taught the parallel phrase: The heirs of the first wife, but no halakhic conclusions should be drawn from this.

וּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ: כְּתוּבָּה נַעֲשֵׂית מוֹתָר לַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ – דִּלְמָא לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ: אֵין כְּתוּבָּה נַעֲשֵׂית מוֹתָר לַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ, וְהָכָא הוּא דְּאִיכָּא מוֹתַר דִּינָר.

And concerning what you said that one marriage contract becomes surplus for the other, this too can be rejected: Perhaps I could actually say to you that one marriage contract does not become surplus for the other, and that the case under discussion here is where there is a surplus of an additional dinar, and the reason why it was not explicitly mentioned is because it is not the subject of our mishna.

וְאַחַת בְּחַיָּיו וְאַחַת בְּמוֹתוֹ – תַּנָּאֵי הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: מֵתוּ, אַחַת בְּחַיָּיו וְאַחַת בְּמוֹתוֹ, בֶּן נַנָּס אוֹמֵר: יְכוֹלִין בְּנֵי הָרִאשׁוֹנָה לוֹמַר לִבְנֵי הַשְּׁנִיָּה: בְּנֵי בַּעֲלַת חוֹב אַתֶּם, טְלוּ כְּתוּבַּת אִמְּכֶם וּצְאוּ.

§ The Gemara notes that in a case where one wife died in his lifetime and one died following his death, there is a dispute between tanna’im if the sons of the wife who died in her husband’s lifetime are entitled to collect their mother’s marriage settlement. As it is taught in a baraita : If they died, one in his lifetime and one following his death, ben Nanas says: The sons of the first wife can say to the sons of the second wife: You are the children of a creditor, so collect your mother’s marriage contract and leave, and we will inherit the rest of the estate due to the marriage contact concerning male children.

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: כְּבָר קָפְצָה נַחֲלָה מִלִּפְנֵי בְּנֵי הָרִאשׁוֹנָה, וְנָפְלָה לִפְנֵי בְּנֵי הַשְּׁנִיָּה.

Rabbi Akiva says: When the husband died, the inheritance already eluded the sons of the first wife and came into the possession of the sons of the second wife as an inheritance, i.e., the Sages did not institute the marriage contract concerning male children in a case where one of the wives was alive when the husband died. Consequently, after the sons of the second wife collect their mother’s marriage settlement, the remainder of the estate is divided evenly between all the man’s sons.

מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי; דְּמָר סָבַר: אַחַת בְּחַיָּיו וְאַחַת בְּמוֹתוֹ – יֵשׁ לָהֶן כְּתוּבַּת בְּנִין דִּכְרִין, וּמָר סָבַר: אַחַת בְּחַיָּיו וְאַחַת בְּמוֹתוֹ – אֵין לָהֶן כְּתוּבַּת בְּנִין דִּכְרִין.

The Gemara comments: What, is it not that they disagree about this: One Sage, ben Nanas, holds that in a case where one wife died in his lifetime and one died following his death, the first wife’s sons are entitled to collect the marriage contract concerning male children. And the other Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that in a case where one wife died in his lifetime and one died following his death, the first wife’s sons are not entitled to collect the marriage contract concerning male children.

אֲמַר רַבָּה: אַשְׁכַּחְתִּינְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן דְּבֵי רַב, דְּיָתְבֵי וְקָאָמְרִי: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אַחַת בְּחַיָּיו וְאַחַת בְּמוֹתוֹ – יֵשׁ לָהֶן כְּתוּבַּת בְּנִין דִּכְרִין, וְהָכָא – בִּכְתוּבָּה נַעֲשֵׂית מוֹתָר לַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ, וְהוּא הַדִּין לְבַעַל חוֹב, קָמִיפַּלְגִי.

Rabba said: I found the Sages of the school of Rav sitting and saying: Everyone agrees that in a case where one wife died in his lifetime and one died following his death, the first wife’s sons are entitled to collect the marriage contract concerning male children. Here, however, they disagree with regard to the question of whether or not one marriage contract becomes surplus for the other in a case where there is no surplus of an additional dinar with which to fulfill the biblical laws of inheritance. And the same is true with regard to payment made to a creditor, i.e., they disagree whether paying a creditor of their father is a sufficient fulfillment of the biblical laws of inheritance to allow collection of the marriage contract concerning male children.

מָר סָבַר: כְּתוּבָּה נַעֲשֵׂית מוֹתָר לַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ, וְהוּא הַדִּין לְבַעַל חוֹב. וּמָר סָבַר: אֵין כְּתוּבָּה נַעֲשֵׂית מוֹתָר לַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ, וְהוּא הַדִּין לְבַעַל חוֹב.

One Sage, ben Nanas, holds that one marriage contract becomes surplus for the other, and the same is true with regard to payment made to a creditor, and one Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that one marriage contract does not become surplus for the other, and the same is true with regard to the debt owed to a creditor.

וְאָמִינָא לְהוּ אֲנָא: בְּבַעַל חוֹב – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּהָוֵי מוֹתָר, כִּי פְּלִיגִי – בִּכְתוּבָּה.

Rabba continues: And I said to them: With regard to payment made to a creditor, everyone agrees that it is considered surplus and fulfills the biblical laws of inheritance, even given the lien attached to it. When they disagree it is with regard to whether a marriage contract can be considered surplus.

מַתְקִיף לָהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: אִי הָכִי: ״רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: כְּבָר קָפְצָה נַחֲלָה״, ״אִם יֵשׁ מוֹתַר דִּינָר״ מִיבָּעֵי לֵיהּ!

Rav Yosef objects to this. If that is so, then why did it say in the baraita that Rabbi Akiva says: The inheritance already eluded them? Rather, it should have said: If there is a surplus of a dinar, since that is the actual focal point of the disagreement.

אֶלָּא אֲמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: בְּאַחַת בְּחַיָּיו וְאַחַת בְּמוֹתוֹ קָא מִיפַּלְגִי,

Rather, Rav Yosef said: They disagree with regard to the basic issue of whether the Sages instituted the marriage contract concerning male children in a case where one wife died in his lifetime and one died following his death, as was explained initially.

וְהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי כִּי הָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי. דְּתַנְיָא: נָשָׂא אֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וּמֵתָה, נָשָׂא אֶת הַשְּׁנִיָּה וּמֵת הוּא – בָּאִין בָּנֶיהָ שֶׁל זוֹ לְאַחַר מִיתָה, וְנוֹטְלִין כְּתוּבַּת אִמָּן. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אִם יֵשׁ מוֹתַר דִּינָר – אֵלּוּ נוֹטְלִין כְּתוּבַּת אִמָּן, וְאֵלּוּ נוֹטְלִין כְּתוּבַּת אִמָּן. וְאִם לָאו – חוֹלְקִין בְּשָׁוֶה.

And these tanna’im , ben Nanas and Rabbi Akiva, are like those other tanna’im , who debated this very same point, as it is taught in a baraita : If he married a first woman and she subsequently died, and he then married a second woman and he subsequently died, the sons of this woman, i.e., the second wife, come after her death and collect payment of their mother’s marriage contract if she did not collect it while she was alive, while the rest of the estate is distributed equally between all the sons. Rabbi Shimon says: If there is a surplus of a dinar, these sons of the first wife collect their mother’s marriage contract, namely, the marriage contract concerning male offspring, and these sons of the second wife collect their mother’s marriage contract, and if not, they divide the entire estate equally among themselves.

מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי; דְּמָר סָבַר: אַחַת בְּחַיָּיו וְאַחַת בְּמוֹתוֹ – יֵשׁ לָהֶן כְּתוּבַּת בְּנִין דִּכְרִין, וּמָר סָבַר: אַחַת בְּחַיָּיו וְאַחַת בְּמוֹתוֹ – אֵין לָהֶם כְּתוּבַּת בְּנִין דִּכְרִין.

What, is it not that they disagree with regard to the following: One Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds 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 one Sage, the first tanna , holds that in a case where one wife died in his lifetime and one died following his death, the sons of the first wife are not entitled to collect the marriage contract concerning male children, and only the second wife’s sons collect their mother’s marriage contract.

לָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא: אַחַת בְּחַיָּיו וְאַחַת בְּמוֹתוֹ – יֵשׁ לָהֶן כְּתוּבַּת בְּנִין דִּכְרִין,

The Gemara rejects this: No, it is possible to say that everyone agrees 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,