The one who writes all of his possessions to his wife, either healthy or sickly, even by word of mouth that they acquired from his hand, he only made her guardian of his inheritors, either because they were the inheritors of his sons from him or from a different wife or his brother or the rest of his inheritors. And if any of it remains, either land or merchandise, she acquires all that he wrote to her. Either this or that she does not lose her ketuba.
In regards to what are we speaking: regarding a married woman. But if he wrote all of his possessions to his betrothed wife, or to his divorced wife, even though that he didn't leave anything, his gift is fulfilled. And she loses her ketuba, except if a small amount of possessions remain.
Any woman who acquired all her husbands assets through a genuine gift has lost [her right to collect] her Ketubah, and it must be torn up. Therefore, if a contractual debt existed against him from a time preceding this gift, ad all his assets were needed to pay off the debt, she is left with nothing and she may not collect her Ketubah before the debt, because we evaluate that with the pleasure that she received from the knowledge that [her husband] had written off all his assets to her she lost any claim she had to his assets from the Ketubah - both assets that he possessed at that moment and those that were sold or given away before then. If, however, he took hold of assets after [he gave her this gift], she may collect her Ketubah from them.
Some authorities say that the [only case in which] she does not lose her Ketubah is if he excluded [some assets from the original gift], that is, if he wrote to her some amount of his assets, even if the amount is large, such as half or two-thirds. If, however, he wrote all his assets to her and specified some excluded amount, event if the exculsion is large, she has lost [her right to collect] her Ketubah from his [currently held] assets, because the dignity afforded to her by writing "all his assets" causes her to forgive [his debt to her].
Some authorities say that if it is clear that he deliberately deceived her in order to cause her to lose out, she has not lost her Ketubah.
If a man had two wives and he wrote all his assets to both of them, neither of them acquires [the assets], and both are considered custodians. If, however, he wrote, "half of my assets will go to this wife and half to that wife," the first wife acquires [the designated half], for he has excluded something, but the second wife does not acquire [her designated half].
If he wrote all his assets to his wife and to his son, his wife acquires half and the some does not acquire [his half]; the son is instead made a custodian. Some authorities say that both are made custodians. Rem"a: If he had a son and a wife, and he said, "Such and such from my assets are for my son and the remainder is for my wife," he certainly intended this to be a genuine gift. If he was intended for both of them to become custodians he would not have given a portion to the son, as it is all rightly his.
If he wrote [his assets] to his wife and to some other person, the other person acquires his half and his wife is made a custodian for the remaining half. In any cases where a contract can prove that he did not intend for custodianship, but instead [he intended] for it to be a genuine gift, it is considered a genuine gift.
If he said, "My wife will have lordship over all my assets," we do not consider this a proper expression for a gift; we rather consider it an expression of custodianship. Rem"a: If someone wrote his assets to his wife and that his heirs would have the right to claim in her absence, we consider this to be a gift and not a custodianship.
If a man said, "Let this daughter of mine take fifty gold coins and this other daughter take fifty gold coins," and he has three daughters and one wife. [When the question was raised], "what will happen to your wife" he responded, "the remainder will be for my wife." We consider this to be a genuine gift as he followed the Torah's principles of inheritance for at least one of his heirs. Rem"a: If he ordered that his assets be given to charity, this is considered leaving a remainder. Other authorities dispute this.