Bava Batra 264:1

ומקולי כתובה שנו כאן

And [the laws] taught here [are among those in which the claims relating to] a <i>kethubah</i> [are] weaker [than those of creditors].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A creditor cannot be deprived of his right to seize the debtor's lands even though he received from him a gift. ');">¹</span> We learned: R. Jose said: If she accepted, [explicitly]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The arrangement as to the distribution of her husband's property. This Mishnah is a continuation of that just cited and discussed. ');">²</span> although the husband did not put her [gift] in writing, she loses her <i>kethubah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Pe'ah III, 7. ');">³</span> [Does not] this is<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Jose's expression, 'if she accepted although&nbsp;… did not put&nbsp;… in writing'. ');">⁴</span>

תנן ר' יוסי אומר אם קבלה עליה אע"פ שלא כתב לה אבדה כתובתה מכלל דת"ק סבר כתיבה וקבלה בעי

imply that the first Tanna holds the opinion that both writing and her [explicit] acceptance are required?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For, had writing alone sufficed to deprive her of her claim according to the first Tanna, R. Jose should have said as follows: 'Although he put it in writing, she does not lose her kethubah unless she explicitly accepted.' Hence it must be concluded that the first Tanna holds that both, writing and her explicit acceptance, are required. How then could Rab, Samuel and R. Jose the son of Hanina explain the Mishnah as dealing with the case where the woman merely remained silent? ');">⁵</span> And if it be suggested that the whole [Mishnah] represents [the view of] R. Jose,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And, accordingly, the first part would teach that writing alone, and the second part that acceptance alone is sufficient. ');">⁶</span> surely, [it may be retorted,] it was taught: 'R. Judah said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In explanation of the Mishnah of Pe'ah cited supra 132a. ');">⁷</span> When [is it said that she lost her <i>kethubah</i>]? [Only] when she was there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the distribution took place. ');">⁸</span>

וכי תימא כולה ר' יוסי היא והא תניא אמר רבי יהודה אימתי שהיתה שם וקבלה עליה אבל היתה שם ולא קבלה עליה קבלה עליה ולא היתה שם לא אבדה כתובתה תיובתא דכולהו תיובתא

and accepted [explicitly]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For had she not acquiesced in the arrangements she would surely have protested at being deprived of her due share. ');">⁹</span> but if she was there and did not accept,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But remained silent. ');">¹⁰</span> or accepted and was not there, she did not lose her <i>kethubah</i>.' [This, surely, is] a refutation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since from R. Judah's interpretation it follows that the first Tanna is not R. Jose, and that he requires both writing and explicit acceptance. ');">¹¹</span> of [the views of] all [the previous explanations]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'of all of them'. Those of Rab, Samuel and R. Jose the son of R. Hanina, according to whom the silence of the wife although there was no explicit acceptance on her part, is sufficient to deprive her of her kethubah. ');">¹²</span>

אמר ליה רבא לרב נחמן הא רב הא שמואל הא ר' יוסי בר' חנינא מר מאי סבירא ליה א"ל שאני אומר כיון שעשאה שותף בין הבנים אבדה כתובתה

It is a refutation. Raba said to R. Nahman: Here is [the explanation] of Rab, here [that of] Samuel, [and] here [that of] R. Jose the son of R. Hanina; what is the opinion of the Master? — He replied to him: It is my opinion that since he made her partner with the sons,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By giving her a piece of land, however small. ');">¹³</span> she lost her <i>kethubah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If she accepted explicitly (R. Gersh.). Either writing or explicit acceptance is enough (Rashb.). ');">¹⁴</span> [The same] was also said [elsewhere]: R. Jose b. Manyumi said in the name of R. Nahman: Since he made her a partner with the sons she loses her <i>kethubah</i>.

איתמר נמי אמר רב יוסף בר מניומי אמר רב נחמן כיון שעשאה שותף בין הבנים אבדה כתובתה

Raba enquired: What<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'how'. ');">¹⁵</span> [is the law] in [the case of] a person in good health?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who assigned his property, in writing, to his sons and allotted some fraction of land to his wife. ');">¹⁶</span> Shall we say that this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The law that she forfeits her kethubah. ');">¹⁷</span> is only in [the case of] a dying man since she knows that he has no more property<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And a dying man is certainly not likely to acquire any new possessions. Hence, her silence may be interpreted as consent. ');">¹⁸</span>

בעי רבא בבריא היאך מי אמרינן בשכיב מרע הוא דידעה דלית ליה וקמחלה אבל בבריא סברה הדר קני או דלמא השתא מיהת לית ליה תיקו

and [therefore by her acceptance] renounces her claims, but in [the case of] a person in good health<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who assigned his property, in writing, to his sons and allotted some fraction of land to his wife. ');">¹⁶</span> [we do not assume that she renounces her claim since] she might expect that he would again acquire [property];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her silence in such a case might be due to her consideration for the feelings of her husband whom she did not wish to annoy unnecessarily at the moment, thinking that there would be time to protest later if he does not acquire any new property. Hence, her claim upon the lands assigned to the sons cannot be regarded as renounced, and her kethubah, therefore, is not lost. ');">¹⁹</span> or, perhaps, [in the latter case also she is assumed to renounce her claims since] now, at least, he has none?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And, had she not been reconciled to the idea of losing her claims upon the lands allotted to the sons, she would have protested immediately. ');">²⁰</span> — Let it stand.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. s.v. Teko. ');">²¹</span>

ההוא דאמר להו פלגא לברת ופלגא לברת ותילתא לאיתת בפירי איקלע רב נחמן לסורא עול לגבי רב חסדא אמר ליה כי האי גוונא מאי אמר ליה הכי אמר שמואל אפילו לא הקנה לה אלא דקל אחד לפירותיו אבדה כתובתה

[Once] a certain [dying] man said to [his executors]; — 'A half<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of his landed property. ');">²²</span> [shall be given] to [one] daughter [of mine], a half to [the other] daughter, and a third of the fruit to [my] wife'. R. Nahman, [who] happened to be [at that time] at Sura was visited by R. Hisda [who] inquired of him [as to] what [was the legal position] in such a case.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the husband had assigned no land at all to his wife. The question is whether it is assumed that a woman renounces her claims only when she is given a share in the land itself but not when she only obtains a portion of fruit (as here), or whether there is no difference between land and fruit as regards the renouncement of her claims. ');">²³</span> — He replied to him: Thus said Samuel, 'Even if he allotted to her one palm-tree for its usufruct<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., only while it continues to be fruit-bearing. ');">²⁴</span> her <i>kethubah</i> is lost,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Her share of the fruit of the tree is regarded as a share in the land itself, since the tree draws its nourishment from the ground and is consequently regarded as real estate. The same law should apply to the case under consideration. ');">²⁵</span>

אמר ליה אימור דאמר שמואל התם דאקני לה בגופה דארעא הכא פירא הוא אמר ליה מטלטלי קא אמרת מטלטלי ודאי לא קא אמינא

[R. Hisda] asked him [again], 'is it not possible<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'Say'. ');">²⁶</span> that Samuel held this view<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'said'. ');">²⁷</span> [only] there, where he allotted to her [a share] in the land itself<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The tree was planted in the ground and is regarded as real estate. ');">²⁸</span> [but not] here, [where] only fruit<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., detached from the ground. ');">²⁹</span>

ההוא דאמר להו תלתא לברת ותלתא לברת ותלתא לאיתת שכיבא חדא מבנתיה סבר רב פפי למימר לא שקלא אלא תלתא

[was allotted]? — [R. Nahman] replied to him: '[Do] you speak of movable objects?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Nahman first understood the question to refer to fruit that was still growing on the trees. ');">³⁰</span> I certainly do not suggest [that the law quoted is to be applied to] moveables'. [Once] a certain [dying] man said to [his executors], 'a third [of my estate shall be given] to [one] daughter [of mine], a third to [the other] daughter, and a third to [my] wife'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In consequence of this gift his wife forfeited her right to seize the other two thirds in payment of her kethubah. ');">³¹</span> [Then] one of his daughters died.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And her third reverted to her father who (in the absence of sons of her own) is heir to his daughter. ');">³²</span> R. Papi intended to give his decision [that the wife] receives only a third;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that third which her husband had allotted to her. She cannot claim her kethubah, according to R. Papi, from the third that reverted to her husband from his dead daughter, because once she renounced her claim upon it (when one of the thirds was allotted to her) she cannot any more regain it. ');">³³</span>