(ח) לֹא יֹאמַר לָהּ, הֲרֵי כְתֻבְּתִיךְ מֻנַּחַת עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן, אֶלָּא כָּל נְכָסָיו אַחֲרָאִין לַכְּתֻבָּה. וְכֵן לֹא יֹאמַר אָדָם לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, הֲרֵי כְתֻבְּתִיךְ מֻנַּחַת עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן, אֶלָּא כָל נְכָסָיו אַחֲרָאִין לִכְתֻבָּתָהּ. גֵּרְשָׁהּ, אֵין לָהּ אֶלָּא כְתֻבָּתָהּ. הֶחֱזִירָהּ, הֲרֵי הִיא כְּכָל הַנָּשִׁים וְאֵין לָהּ אֶלָּא כְתֻבָּתָהּ בִּלְבָד:
(8) The yavam) may not say to her: "Here is (the money to cover) your kethubah lying on the table"; but all of his property [that he inherited from his brother] is bound (as security) to her kethubah. Likewise, a man may not say to his wife: "Here is your kethubah lying on the table," but all of his property is bound to her kethubah. If he (the yavam) divorced her, she receives only (the amount of) her kethubah. [But so long as he did not divorce her, she is like all other women, and she has only her (original) kethubah alone. [For one who divorces his wife and takes her back, takes her back within the framework of her first kethubah. And it is necessary to apprise us that this obtains, too, with a yevamah; that we not say that this is so only with his wife, whom he had written a kethubah resting upon his property, but not with a yevamah, where he had not written it, but where the property of her first husband had been bound as security for it — so that in an instance where he divorced her and took her back, I might think that he would have to provide her with his own kethubah. We are hereby apprised that this is not so.]
(א) הַכּוֹתֵב לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִנְכָסַיִךְ, הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת בְּחַיֶּיהָ. וְאִם מֵתָה, יוֹרְשָׁהּ. אִם כֵּן לָמָּה כָתַב לָהּ דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִנְכָסַיִךְ, שֶׁאִם מָכְרָה וְנָתְנָה, קַיָּם. כָּתַב לָהּ, דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִנְכָסַיִךְ וּבְפֵרוֹתֵיהֶן, הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת בְּחַיֶּיהָ. וְאִם מֵתָה, יוֹרְשָׁהּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, לְעוֹלָם אוֹכֵל פֵּרֵי פֵרוֹת, עַד שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב לָהּ דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִנְכָסַיִךְ וּבְפֵרוֹתֵיהֶן וּבְפֵרֵי פֵרוֹתֵיהֶן עַד עוֹלָם. כָּתַב לָהּ, דִּין וּדְבָרִים אֵין לִי בִנְכָסַיִךְ וּבְפֵרוֹתֵיהֶן וּבְפֵרֵי פֵרוֹתֵיהֶן בְּחַיַּיִךְ וּבְמוֹתֵךְ, אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹת בְּחַיֶּיהָ. וְאִם מֵתָה, אֵינוֹ יוֹרְשָׁהּ. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, אִם מֵתָה, יִירָשֶׁנָּה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִתְנָה עַל מַה שֶׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה, וְכָל הַמַּתְנֶה עַל מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה, תְּנָאוֹ בָטֵל:
(ב) מִי שֶׁמֵּת וְהִנִּיחַ אִשָּׁה וּבַעַל חוֹב וְיוֹרְשִׁין, וְהָיָה לוֹ פִקָּדוֹן אוֹ מִלְוֶה בְּיַד אֲחֵרִים, רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר, יִנָּתְנוּ לַכּוֹשֵׁל שֶׁבָּהֶן. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, אֵין מְרַחֲמִין בַּדִּין, אֶלָּא יִנָּתְנוּ לַיּוֹרְשִׁין, שֶׁכֻּלָּן צְרִיכִין שְׁבוּעָה וְאֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁין צְרִיכִין שְׁבוּעָה:
(ג) הִנִּיחַ פֵּרוֹת תְּלוּשִׁין מִן הַקַּרְקַע, כָּל הַקּוֹדֵם זָכָה בָהֶן. זָכְתָה אִשָּׁה יוֹתֵר מִכְּתֻבָּתָהּ, וּבַעַל חוֹב יוֹתֵר עַל חוֹבוֹ, הַמּוֹתָר, רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר, יִנָּתְנוּ לַכּוֹשֵׁל שֶׁבָּהֶן. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, אֵין מְרַחֲמִין בַּדִּין, אֶלָּא יִנָּתְנוּ לַיּוֹרְשִׁים, שֶׁכֻּלָּם צְרִיכִין שְׁבוּעָה וְאֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁים צְרִיכִין שְׁבוּעָה:
(1) He who writes to his bride [in the ketubah (monetary settlement payable to a woman upon divorce or the death of her husband)], "I have no legal claim to your property," may [nevertheless] enjoy the usufruct during her lifetime, and if she dies, he inherits from her. If so, why did he write to her, "I have no legal claim to your property", i.e. what is the effect of such a statement? That if she sells or gives [it] away, [the transaction] is valid. If he writes to her, "I have no legal claim to your property, nor to its usufruct," he may not enjoy the usufruct during her lifetime; but if she dies, he does inherit her. Rabbi Yehudah says, "He always may enjoy the usufruct of the proceeds of her property, until he writes to her, 'I have no legal claim to your property, nor to its fruits, nor to the proceeds of these fruits forever.'" If he writes to her, 'I have no legal claim to your property, nor to its fruits [nor to the proceeds of these fruits] neither during your lifetime, nor upon your death,' he may not enjoy the usufruct during her life, and if she dies he does not inherit her." Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says, "If she dies, he does inherit her, because he has stipulated [in opposition] to what is written in the Torah, and whoever stipulates [in opposition] to what is written in the Torah, his stipulation is null and void."
(2) With regard to one who dies and leaves a wife, creditors and heirs, and he had a deposited object or a loan in another's hands, Rabbi Tarfon says, "It should be given to the weakest among them." Rabbi Akiva says, "There is no mercy in [the administration of] justice; rather, [the property] is given to the heirs, as all [the other claimants] must take an oath [to support their claim], whereas the heirs need not take an oath."
(3) If he left fruit detached from the ground, whoever [seizes them] first takes [full] possession of them. If the wife took possession of more than [the amount of] her ketubah, or the creditor of more than [the amount of] his debt, [with regard to] the surplus, Rabbi Tarfon says, "It should be given to the weakest among them. Rabbi Akivah says, "There is no mercy in [the administration of] justice; rather, [the property] is given to the heirs, as all [the other claimants] must take an oath [to support their claim], whereas the heirs need not take an oath."