Mishnayos Kesuvos Perek 8 Mishnah 7
Change text layout:
כתובות פרק ח׳ משנה ז׳
If his deceased brother left money as part of his estate, land to be used as a lien on her marriage contract is acquired with it, and the yavam consumes the produce. Similarly, if the deceased brother left produce that is detached from the ground, land is acquired with it and the yavam consumes the produce. If he left behind produce that is attached to the ground, Rabbi Meir says: One evaluates the properties to determine how much they are worth with the produce, and how much they are worth without the produce. And as for the surplus, which is the value of the produce, land is acquired with it and the yavam consumes the produce. And the Rabbis say: Produce that is attached to the ground is his. Therefore, it is not used in the purchase of land, but the yavam may eat it. As for the produce that is detached from the ground, which is not mortgaged to her marriage contract, whoever takes possession first has acquired it. If the yavam takes possession of the property first, he has acquired it and may use it as he wishes, but if she is first, land is acquired with it and he consumes the produce. After the yavam has married her, her legal status is that of his wife in every sense, except that the responsibility for payment of her marriage contract is carried out through mortgaging the property of her first husband, not that of the yavam.
הִנִּיחַ אָחִיו מָעוֹת, יִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת. פֵּרוֹת הַתְּלוּשִׁין מִן הַקַּרְקַע, יִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת. הַמְחֻבָּרִין בַּקַּרְקַע, אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, שָׁמִין אוֹתָן כַּמָּה הֵן יָפִין בְּפֵרוֹת וְכַמָּה הֵן יָפִין בְּלֹא פֵרוֹת, וְהַמּוֹתָר, יִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, פֵּרוֹת הַמְחֻבָּרִים בַּקַּרְקַע, שֶׁלּוֹ. וְהַתְּלוּשִׁין מִן הַקַּרְקַע, כָּל הַקּוֹדֵם זָכָה בָהֶן. קָדַם הוּא, זָכָה. קָדְמָה הִיא, יִלָּקַח בָּהֶן קַרְקַע וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת. כְּנָסָהּ, הֲרֵי הִיא כְאִשְׁתּוֹ לְכָל דָּבָר, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁתְּהֵא כְתֻבָּתָהּ עַל נִכְסֵי בַעְלָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן:
Bartenura
ילקח בהן קרקע. לפי שכתובתה על נכסי בעלה הראשון, לפיכך נכסי המת אחראין לכתובתה אלא שהיבם אוכל פירות אם מיבם אותה, וסבר מטלטלי משתעבדי לכתובה:
שמין אותם. דכל מה שגדל ברשות המת אחראין לכתובה:
וחכמים אומרים פירות המחוברים לקרקע שלו. בגמרא פריך, והא כל נכסיו אחראין וערבאין לכתובה, ומשני, תני שלה:
כל הקודם זכה. קסברי, מטלטלי לכתובה לא משתעבדי אא״כ תפסה. ומחיים דבעל בעינן תפיסה. והוא הדין נמי דפליגי אכספים, דמאי שנא כספים מפירות תלושין. והלכה כחכמים:
הרי היא כאשתו. שמגרשה בגט, ומחזירה. ולא אמרינן ויבמה אמר רחמנא ועדיין יבומין ראשונים עליה ולא תסגי לה בגט. והכי נמי כשגירשה הוה אמינא מצוה דרמיא רחמנא עליה הא קעבדה, ותיקו עליה באיסור אשת אח ולא מצי להחזירה, קמ״ל דאמר רחמנא (דברים כ״ה:ה׳) ולקחה לו לאשה, כיון שלקחה הרי היא כאשתו:
ילקח בהן קרקע – because her Ketubah is based upon the property of her first husband; therefore, the property of the dead is surety for her Ketubah but the levir eats from the usufruct and if he performs levirate marriage with her, and [and holds] that movable possessions are mortgaged to the Ketubah.
שמין אותם – all that grew in the domain of the dead [brother] is surety to the Ketubah.
וחכמים אומרים פירות המחוברים לקרקע שלו – In the Gemara (Tractate Ketubot 82a) it raises the question: but aren’t all his landed property a surety and a pledge for her Ketubah? And it answers (in the words of Resh Lakish): Read, “belongs to her” (the Sages’ dispute is limited to detached produce and money which, they maintain, as movables and not pledged to the Ketubah).
כל הקודם זכה – for they hold that movables are not mortgaged to the Ketubah other than if she took hold of them and we require from the lifetime of the husband is the taking hold/possession and the same law applies regarding money, for is the difference of money from detached produce, and the Halakha is according to the Sages.
הרי היא כאשתו – for when he divorces her with a Jewish bill of divorce and restores her [as his wife], and we don’t speak about (Deuteronomy 25:5): “and perform the levir’s duty,” the All-Merciful said, and still the first levirate marriages are upon her and a Jewish bill of divorce is not sufficient for her, and that is so, that she was divorced, we would say that it a Mitzvah that the All-Merciful cast upon her that when she performs it and established upon her the prohibition of the wife of a brother , and he cannot bring her back, this comes to teach us that the All-Merciful stated (Deuteronomy 25:5): “he shall take her as his wife and perform the levir’s duty.” Since he took her, she is like his wife.