משנה: מִי שֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ בָּנִים וּבָנוֹת בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַנְּכָסִים מְרוּבִּין הַבָּנִים יִירְשׁוּ וְהַבָּנוֹת יִיזּוֹנוּ. הַנְּכָסִים מְמוּעָטִין הַבָּנוֹת יִיזּוֹנוּ וְהַבָּנִים יִשְׁאֲלוּ עַל הַפְּתָחִים. אַדְמוֹן אוֹמֵר בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁאֲנִי זָכָר הִפְסַדְתִּי. אָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דִּבְרֵי אַדמוֹן. MISHNAH: 1Mishnah Ketubot 13:1, explained there in Notes 50–52. If somebody die and is survived by sons and daughters. If the estate is large, the sons inherit and the daughters will be sustained. If the estate is small, the daughters shall be sustained and the sons shall go begging. Admon said, because I am a male, shall I lose? Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I am convinced by Admon’s statement.
הלכה: מִי שֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ בָּנִים וּבָנוֹת כול׳. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. הַבָּנוֹת יִזּוֹנוּ וְהַבָּנִים (יִשְׁאֲלוּ) [יִסְחָרוּ] עַל הַפְּתָחִים. HALAKHAH: “If somebody die and is survived by sons and daughters,” etc. So is the Mishnah: “the daughters shall be sustained and the sons shall go (begging) [peddling]2The text in parenthesis is from L, the one in brackets from E. Since the L text is identical with the Mishnah, it is clear that the critical remark “so is the Mishnah” refers to the E text or a similar reading as reported in Ketubot (13:4, Notes 74–76). In contrast to the Ketubot text, here the alternate reading is endorsed.
According to the Mishnah and the L text, the sons are sent begging irrespective of their age. According to the revised version, small children covered by the decree of Usha (Ketubot 4:8, Notes 187–193), who cannot earn money, must be supported with the daughters..
רַב יִרְמְיָה בְשֵׁם רַב. וְהוּא שֶׁיְּהֵא שָׁם לְאֵילּוּ [וּלְאֵילּוּ] מְזוֹנוֹת שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חוֹדֶשׁ. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. זוֹ דִבְרֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּרִבִּי. אֲבָל דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים. עַד שֶׁיִּבָּגוּרוּ אוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּנָּֽשְׂאוּ. וְאִית בָּהּ לְקוּלָּא וְאִית בָּהּ לְחוּמְרָא. פְּעָמִים שֶׁסְּמוּכִין לְבֶגֶר וּפְעָמִים שֶׁרְחוֹקוֹת מִן הַבֶּגֶר. בְּעוֹן קוֹמֵי רִבִּי חִייָה בַּר װָה. אֵיךְ שָׁמַעְתָּנָהּ מֵרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אָמַר לוֹן. אֲנָא לָא שִׁמְעֵית מִינֵּיהּ הָדָא מִילְּתָא אֶלָּא מַה דְנָתָן בַּר הוֹשַׁעְיָה בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הָיָה שָׁם לָאֵילּוּ וְלָאֵילּוּ מָזוֹן י̇ב̇ חוֹדֶשׁ וְנִתְמָעֵטוּ נְכָסִין. אָמַר לֵיהּ. הוֹאִיל וְהִתְחִילוּ בְּהֵיתֵר הִתְחִילוּ. 3This is a reformulation of a paragraph in Ketubot 13:3, Notes 53–58. Rav Jeremiah in the name of Rav: That there should be twelve months of sustenance for all of them. Samuel said, this is the opinion of Rabban Gamliel ben Rebbi, but the words of the Sages are, until they reach adulthood or are married. That is both a leniency and a restriction. Sometimes they are close to adulthood, sometimes far from adulthood. They asked before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, what did you hear from Rebbi Joḥanan? He said to them, I did not hear anything from him concerning this matter except what Nathan bar Hoshaia asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: what if there was sustenance for twelve months but the estate diminished in value? He answered him, since they started with permission, they started.
רִבִּי חֲנִינָה וְרִבִּי מָנָא. חַד אָמַר. וְהוּא שֶיְּהֵא שָׁם בְּסוֹף מָזוֹן י̇ב̇ חוֹדֶשׁ. וְחָרָנָה אָמַר. אֲפִילוּ מִתְּחִילָּה. לֹא הָיָה שָׁם לָאֵילּוּ וְלָאֵילּוּ מָזוֹן י̇ב̇ חוֹדֶשׁ וְהוֹתִירוּ יֵשׁ שָׁם מָזוֹן לָאֵילּוּ וְלָאֵילּוּ י̇ב̇ חוֹדֶשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי אִמִּי בַּבְלַייָא. נִישְׁמִינָהּ מֵהָדָא. אִם עָֽמְדוּ יְתוֹמִין וּמָֽכְרוּ שֶׁלָּהֶן מָֽכְרוּ. כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן אִם הוֹתִירוּ יְחַלְּקוּ. הָיָה שָׁם לָאֵילּוּ וְלָאֵילּוּ מָזוֹן י̇ב̇ חוֹדֶשׁ וְאַלְמָנָה לָזוּן. מָהוּ שֶיֹּאמְרוּ בָנִים לַבָּנוֹת. כְּלוּם אֵין לָכֶם אֶלָּא מָזוֹן י̇ב̇ חוֹדֶשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי אֶבְדּוּמִי. נִישְׁמִינָהּ מֵהָדָא. אִם אָֽמְרוּ הַיְּתוֹמִים. הֲרֵי אָנוּ מַעֲלִין נִיכְסֵי אָבִינוּ יוֹתֵר דֵּינָר. אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לָהֶן. רַב חִסְדָּא בָּעֵי. הָיָה שָׁם לָאֵילּוּ וְלָאֵילּוּ מָזוֹן י̇ב̇ חוֹדֶשׁ וְאַלְמָנָה לָזוּן. מָהוּ שֶיֹּאמְרוּ בָנִים לַבָּנוֹת. אֵין לָכֶם אֶלָּא מָזוֹן י̇ב̇ חוֹדֶשׁ. וָדָא דְתֵימַר. וְהוּא שֶׁיְּהֵא שָׁם לָאֵילּוּ וְלָאֵילּוּ מָזוֹן י̇ב̇ חוֹדֶשׁ. חוּץ מִכְּתוּבַּת אִשָּׁה חוּץ מִמְּזוֹנוֹת אַלְמָנָה חוּץ מִפַּרְנָסַת בָּנוֹת חוּץ מִמִּלְוָה בִשְׁטָר חוּץ מִמִּלְוָה בָעֵדִים חוּץ מִקְּבוּרָתָהּ. אַלְמָנָה וּבָנוֹת שְׁתַּיִם שָׁווֹת אַלְמָנָה וּבָנִים שְׁנֵיהֶן שָׁוִין. אֵין אַלְמָנָה דוֹחָה לְבָנוֹת וְלֹא בָנוֹת דוֹחוֹת לָאַלְמָנָה. פְּעָמִים שֶׁאַלְמָנָה דוֹחָה לְבָנוֹת עַל יְדֵי בָנִים. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהָאַלְמָנָה דוֹחָה לְבָנוֹת עַל יְדֵי בָנִים כָּךְ תִּדְּחֶה אַלְמָנָה לַבָּנִים. אָמַר. רְאוּיָה הִיא לִתְבּוֹעַ וּלְאַבֵּד מְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ. 4Compare Ketubot 13:3, Notes 59–71. Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Mana. One said, only if at the end there be sustenance for twelve months. But the other said, even from the start5The question which is answered here is only stated in Ketubot: What is the definition of a large estate? In the first opinion the estate is large if after 12 months there still is left enough money to sustain the entire family, sons and daughters, for 12 months. In the other opinion it is enough that there be sufficient funds for the first 12 months.. If there was not sustenance for all of them for twelve months but they increased it so that how there is sustenance for all of them for twelve months6The sons could not be supported during the first 12 months. May they be supported now that the estate is large according to the first definition?? Rebbi Immi the Babylonian said, let us hear from the following: If the heirs sold, they sold from their own property7Cf. Ketubot 13:3, Note 63: If the male heirs sold real estate from a small estate, their sale is valid since they are the heirs in biblical law; the rights of the daughters are purely contractual. While the widow can take the real estate away from the buyer for her ketubah as prior mortgage holder, the daughters cannot since their claim was created only at their father’s death, when the sons already were legal owners of the property.. So much more, if they increased it, they should be able to divide it8The court-appointed guardian will have to include the sons for sustenance.. If there was sustenance for all of them for twelve months and a widow to support, may the sons say to the daughters: you have sustenance only for twelve months?9This question is difficult to understand since, as mentioned later, the widow’s claim is paramount and the value of the estate is computed only after all claims of the widow are satisfied. Therefore, the mention of the widow here has to be deleted. In Ketubot, the question is: If there was more than enough to sustain only the daughters but not enough for both daughters and sons, according to the second definition of a large estate may the sons distribute among themselves the monies exceeding the daughters’ claims for 12 months? Rebbi Eudaimon said, let us hear from the following: 10A truncated version of Mishnah 10:2. The Mishnah prohibits sons to manipulate the valuation of an estate in order to gain an advantage over their half-brothers. It is implied here that they cannot manipulate the estate to the detriment of their sisters.“If the orphans said, we accept the properties of our father for the value of an extra denar, one does not listen to them.” Rav Ḥisda asked11In Ketubot, Rav Ḥisda asked the first question, Note 6.: if there was sustenance for all of them for twelve months and a widow to support, may the sons say to the daughters: you have sustenance only for twelve months?9This question is difficult to understand since, as mentioned later, the widow’s claim is paramount and the value of the estate is computed only after all claims of the widow are satisfied. Therefore, the mention of the widow here has to be deleted. In Ketubot, the question is: If there was more than enough to sustain only the daughters but not enough for both daughters and sons, according to the second definition of a large estate may the sons distribute among themselves the monies exceeding the daughters’ claims for 12 months? But this means, only if there was sustenance for all of them for twelve months, except for ketubah of the wife, except for the sustenance of the widow, except for the dowries of the daughters, except for loans by document, except for loans by witnesses, except for her burial12The value of an estate can only be determined after all actual and contractual liabilities were deducted.. The widow and the daughters are of equal rank13In the Babli, 140b and Ketubot43a, the widow’s position is privileged. If there is not enough money to sustain both widow and daughters, the daughters are sent begging.. The widow and the sons are of equal rank. The widow does not push the daughters aside and the daughters do not push the widow aside. Sometimes the widow pushes the daughters out by means of the sons. Just as the widow pushes out the daughters by means of the sons, should the widow not push out the sons14It seems that in the last two sentences, the places of “sons” and “daughters” should be switched. The question is whether the widow’s sustenance is privileged over the daughters’ claims to sustenance.? She might claim her ketubah and lose her right to sustenance15Her claim to sustenance is conditional; it cannot override the claim of the daughters which is absolute. The Babli disagrees..
כְּהָדָא אַרְמַלְתֵּיהּ דְרִבִּי שׁוּבְתַי הֲוָּת מְבַזְבְזָה בְּנִיכְסַיָּה. אֲתוֹן בָּנוֹי קָֽרְבוֹן לְרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. אָמַר לוֹן. וּמַה נִיעֲבִיד לְכוֹן וְאִינּוּן עַמָּא שַׁטְייָא. מִי נַחְתּוֹן אָֽמְרוּן אָֽמְרוּ לַכְּתוֹבָה מַה נַעֲבִיד. אָמַר לוֹן. אִיתְחֲמוֹן זַבְנוֹן מִן נִיכְסֵי וְאַתְייָא וְתָֽבְעָה פֶּרְנָא וְלֵית לָהּ מְזוֹנִין. בָּתָר יוֹמִין אָתָת וּקְרֵיבַת לְרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. אָֽמְרָה לֵיהּ. יָבוֹא עָלַי אִם אָמַרְתִּי לָהֶן דָּבָר. וּמַה נַעֲבִיד וּמַכַּת פְּרוּשִׁין נָֽגְעוּ בָהּ. 16A slight reformulation of the paragraph in Soṭah 3:4, Notes 143–148. The paragraph is inserted to show that the widow may be manipulated to forgo her claim of sustenance. As the following: Rebbi Sabbatai’s widow was wasting the estate. His sons came before Rebbi Eleazar. He said to them, what can one do for you; they are stupid. When they left, they said, let us ask the scribe what to do. He told them: Behave as if you would sell of the real estate and she will demand her ketubah and will no longer have support. After some time she came before Rebbi Eleazar. He said, It should come over me if I had told them anything. What can one do, this one was hit by predatory people.
רַב חֲנַנְאֵל בְּשֵׁם [רַב] רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְּשֵׁם אַבָּא בַּר יִרְמְיָה. שְׁנֵי דְבָרִים אָמַר חָנָן הֲלָכָה כְמוֹתוֹ. שִׁבְעָה דְבָרִים אָמַר אַדְמוֹן וְאֵין הֲלָכָה כְמוֹתוֹ. רִבִּי בָּא בַּר זַבְדָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יִצְחָק בֶּן חֲקוּלָה. כָּל־מָקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ אָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דִּבְרֵי אַדְמוֹן הֲלָכָה כְאַדְמוֹן. 17An almost complete copy of paragraphs in Ketubot 13:1 (Notes 36,37), 13:4 (Note 77); Babli Ketubot109a. Rav Ḥananel in the name of [Rav]18Missing in L, inserted from E; required by the parallel texts and reasons of chronology.; Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Abba bar Jeremiah: Practice follows Ḥanan in his two statements; practice does not follow Admon in his seven statements. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rebbi Isaac bar Ḥaqula: In every case in which Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I am convinced by Admon’s statement, practice follows Admon.
שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. זָכִין לָעֹבָרִים. רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר אָמַר. אֵין זָכִין לָעוֹבָרִין. מַתְנִיתָא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. גֵּר שֶׁמֵּת וּבִיזְבְּזוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת נְכָסָיו וְנוֹדַע שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בֵן אוֹ שֶׁהָֽיְתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ מְעוּבֶּרֶת כּוּלָּן חַייָבִין לְהַחֲזִיר. הֶחֱזִירוּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת הַבֵּן אוֹ שֶׁהִפִּילָה אִשְׁתּוֹ. הַמַּחֲזִיק בָּאַחֲרוֹנָה זָכָה. בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה זָכָה אִי לֹא. פָּתַר לָהּ מִשּׁוּם יִיאוּשׁ וַאֲפִילי כִשְׁמוּאֵל לֵית הוּא פְלִיגָא. אוֹ אֲפִילוּ בָאַחֲרוֹנָה לֹא יִזְכֶּה. עוֹד הוּא מִשּׁוּם יִיאוּשׁ. 19Cf. Yebamot 4:1, Notes 24–40; Babli Bava batra 141b/142a. Samuel said, one can transfer benefits to the fetus; Rebbi Eleazar said, one cannot transfer benefits to the fetus. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar. “If a proselyte died20He died without Jewish children; his estate became ownerless with his death. His Jewish wife, who is not an heir, may take everything she can lay her hands on. (Halakhah 3:1, Notes 19,23; Giṭṭin 4:4 Note 106). and Jews plundered his estate, then it became known that he had a son21A Jewish heir. or that his wife was pregnant, everybody is required to return [what he took]22The unborn baby is an heir by biblical decree, Num. 27:8.. If they returned everything and then the son died or his wife had a miscarriage, the last one in possession acquires it.23This baraita seems to follow Samuel. The unborn child acquired the inheritance; if he dies, the estate newly becomes ownerless and the last person to hold it acquires. Rebbi Eleazar should require that everything be returned to the first taker.” Did the first group acquire or not? Explain it, because of hopelessness24When the court decreed that the proselyte had a legal heir and the first takers returned the property, they gave up hope of owning it and with it any claim of ownership. Cf. Bava meṣia‘ 2:1 Note 6. and it does not even disagree with Samuel. Or should the last one not have acquired it25Since he got it under a false assumption.? Still it is because of hopelessness.