Bekhorot 103

Chapter 103

א ולא האשה בכתובתה ולא הבנות במזונותיהן ולא את היבם וכולם אין נוטלין בשבח ולא בראוי כבמוחזק:
1 NOR CAN A WOMAN CLAIM WITH HER KETHUBAH [FROM THESE],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., from the improvement in value of the estate or from what is to accrue to the estate.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מ"ט אמר קרא (דברים כא, יז) ולו משפט הבכורה משפט הבכורה לאיש ואין משפט הבכורה לאשה
2 NOR CAN DAUGHTERS CLAIM THEIR SUPPORT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a man undertakes to support for five years the daughter of his wife whom she had from another man, on his death the alimentation can be taken only from the present value of the estate but not from what is to accrue to the estate after his death nor from any increment in the estate.');"><sup>2</sup></span> NOR CAN A LEVIR CLAIM.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A brother-in-law who takes his own and the share of his deceased brother whose wife he had taken in levirate marriage, cannot take the improvement in value from the dead brother's inheritance or from what accrued to the estate after the brother's death.');"><sup>3</sup></span> NONE OF THESE TAKE FROM THE IMPROVEMENT IN THE VALUE OF THE ESTATE, NOR OF WHAT WILL FALL TO THE ESTATE AS THEY DO OF WHAT IS NOW HELD IN POSSESSION.
ג ואינו נוטל בשבח דכתיב (דברים כא, יז) בכל אשר ימצא לו ולא בראוי כבמוחזק דכתיב בכל אשר ימצא לו
3 <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>What is the reason? - Scripture say. The right of the first-born is his,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXI, 17.');"><sup>4</sup></span> [intimating] that the right of the first-born [is conferred] by a man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The estate of a man.');"><sup>5</sup></span> but not by a woman.
ד ולא האשה בכתובתה איני והאמר שמואל בעל חוב גובה את השבח א"ר אבא מקולי כתובה שנו כאן:
4 HE DOES NOT TAKE DOUBLE SHARE OF THE INCREASE IN VALUE because Scripture says: Of all that he hath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. He hath at present.');"><sup>6</sup></span> NOR DOES HE TAKE A DOUBLE SHARE OF WHAT WILL FALL DUE [TO THE ESTATE] AS HE DOES OF WHAT IS HELD IN POSSESSION, because Scripture says: Of all that he hath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What he hath, at the time of death.');"><sup>7</sup></span> NOR CAN A WOMAN CLAIM WITH HER KETHUBAH. Is it really so? Has not Samuel said: A creditor<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one lent another money on the security of an estate and the debtor sold his property and the purchasers improved it, the creditor can seize the whole estate including the improvement in the property. The woman also is here in the position of a creditor.');"><sup>8</sup></span> can claim also the improvement in the value of the estate? - Said R'Abba: They have taught here one of the concessions made in connection with the kethubah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the Rabbis made certain concessions (to the heirs) in connection with the kethubah as that, for example, she cannot claim from land of average quality as is the case with a creditor but only claims from the worst land (B.K. 7b) and also that she must take an oath when claiming (v. Git. 34b) , they also made a further concession by laying down that she cannot claim from the improvement in the estate which has taken place since her husband's death (R. Gershom) .');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ה ולא הבנות במזונותיהן: מ"ט תנאי כתובה ככתובה דמי:
5 NOR THE OBLIGATIONS OF SUPPORTING THE DAUGHTERS. What is the reason? - Stipulations in a kethubah are like the kethubah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And just as a woman cannot claim with her kethubah from the increase in value of the estate since her husband's death, so it is with any undertaking set forth in the kethubah.');"><sup>10</sup></span> NOR A LEVIR'What is the reason?
ו ולא את היבם: מ"ט בכור קרייה רחמנא אמר אביי ל"ש אלא בשבח ששבחו נכסים בין מיתה ליבום אבל דבין יבום לחלוקה שקיל מ"ט (דברים כה, ו) יקום על שם אחיו המת אמר רחמנא והרי קם
6 Scripture calls him a firstborn.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it shall be that the first-born that she beareth, and in Yeb. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> Said Abaye: They have taught this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the levir does not take from the increase in the value of the estate belonging to his dead brother.');"><sup>12</sup></span> only with regard to the improvement in the value of the estate between the death of the brother and the performance of the levirate marriage, but he does take a double share of the improvement of the value of the estate which took place between the period of the performance of the levirate marriage and the division of the estate. What is the reason? The Divine Law says: Shall succeed in the name of his brother that is dead;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 6.');"><sup>13</sup></span> but here is a case of one who succeeded.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As soon as he married the deceased brother's wife, the double share of the estate is his, for he is in the place of his brother and is no longer called the first-born. Consequently the improvement in the estate took place in his possession and thus he takes two shares in the improvement of the estate.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
ז רבא אמר אפי' דבין יבום לחלוקה נמי לא שקיל מ"ט כבכור מה בכור אין לו קודם חלוקה אף יבם נמי אין לו קודם חלוקה:
7 Raba however says: He does not take the improvement in the brother's share even between the period of the performance of the levirate marriage and the dividing up of the estate. What is the reason? He has the same law as a first-born;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even after the performance of the levirate marriage he is still called the first-born.');"><sup>15</sup></span> as a first-born does not take [a double share of the improvement in the value of the estate] before the division, so a levir also does not take [a double share of the improvement] before the division.
ח וכולם אין נוטלין בשבח:
8 NONE OF THESE TAKE FROM THE IMPROVEMENT IN THE VALUE OF THE ESTATE.