Talmud for Ketubot 10:1

HALAKHAH: “If somebody writes to his wife¹After the preliminary but before the definitive marriage, when he does not yet have the administration of her properties.: “I shall have nothing to do with your properties,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: If he did not take her in⁶The language quoted in the Mishnah is appropriate if the husband renounces his right to acquire the administration of his wife’s property. This must be done before the definitive marriage. The Babli agrees, also in the name of R. Yannai (83a).. But if he took her in, nobody can lose his rights by these expressions⁷Since he did acquire the right of administration by the definitive marriage, a contract executed after this moment would have to contain language of transfer of rights (by gift or sale) to be legally actionable.
In Giṭṭin 8:1 (49b 1. 30 ff.) it is stated that the husband can deliver a bill of divorce to his wife by depositing it on her paraphernalia property only if previously he had validly renounced his rights to the income produced by that property because the right to income is an ownership right.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this is the word of Rebbi Ḥiyya: He who says that “my hands are removed from this field, my feet are removed from this field⁸If he tells his wife that he does not want to take care of her properties, this has no legal consequences since he is obligated to work for her. The only way he can remove his obligation is by a formal transfer of his right to her as a gift.
The Babli (83a, 95a; Giṭṭin 77a; Baba batra 43a, 49a; Keritut 24b) notes that even between strangers such a formula would not transfer property rights.,” did not say anything. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: Does a Mishnah imply that nobody can lose his rights by these expressions? Did we not state there⁹Mishnah 10:6.: “If somebody was married to two wives when he sold a field¹⁰The field is mortgaged to both ketubot; if he dies and there is not enough money in his estate to satisfy the claims of both wives, the wives can reclaim the field from the buyer since their lien precedes his title. and the first one wrote for the buyer: I have no claims on you¹¹She agrees with the sale and promises not to sue the buyer., the second¹²She was no party to the transaction. If her claim to ketubah is not satisfied, she can repossess the field. one can take it away from the buyer’s hands,” this implies, not the first one. He said to him, that text itself implies that nobody can lose his rights by these expressions, but here the second wife cannot take anything away from the first¹³The second wife by her action does not diminish the claim of the first to the property., and why can the first one not take it away from the buyer’s hands? For she writes to him: For any complaint I shall have regarding this field, I shall have nothing against you¹⁴All the first wife agreed to was not to sue the buyer. This prevents her from going to court but has no influence on her rights vis-à-vis others. It is stated in Mishnah 10:1 that the ketubah of a first wife has precedence over that of a second wife. Therefore, if the second wife recovers the field from the buyer, the first one may sue the second for the unsatisfied part of her own ketubah. Therefore, the first wife did not transfer any property rights by her statement to the buyer..

²⁰Mishnah Ketubot 10:4. The text and its relation to the corresponding one in Ketubot 10:4 is explained there in Notes 73–75. There, we have stated: “Similarly, if three who invested together lost or gained they would split in this manner.” Rebbi Abun said, the statement looks reasonable if they bought a precious stone because he can say to him, without my ten denars you could not have bought anything. But anything that usually is split {smaller units that can be bought with less capital} one adds together and splits {proportionally to the capital invested}. Rebbi Eleazar says, even things that usually are split [are divided evenly], because he can say to him, you have a lot of merchandise and you have difficulty selling it. I have little merchandise and turn it over rapidly and make as much as you do. So far if his merchandise was here. What if his merchandise was in Rome? He can say to him, by the time you went to Rome, I turn mine over rapidly here and make as much as you do.

When does one appraise for them? Rebbi Mana said, one appraises at the end⁵⁹At the end of 12 months.. Rebbi Ḥanina said to him, the words of the rabbis imply that one does not listen to you, for Nathan bar Hoshaia asked before Rebbi Joḥanan, if there was sustenance for twelve months but the estate diminished in value? He answered him, since the heirs started to eat with permission, they continue to eat until the last coin is gone! Therefore, one appraises at the start⁶⁰The only valid appraisal is one made immediately after the father’s death.. Rav Ḥisda asked: If there was sustenance for twelve months and then the property increased in value⁶¹Can the daughters claim part of the value by which the estate has increased over the appraisal?? Let us hear from the following, for Rebbi Ḥanina, Rebbi Yasa⁶²In Baba batra, the statement is in the name of “the Babylonian R. Ammi”, i. e., R. Immi, the constant companion of R. Yasa. said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If the heirs sold, they sold from their own property⁶³If the male heirs sold real estate from a small estate, their sale is valid since they are the heirs in biblical law; the rights of the daughters are purely contractual. While the widow can take the real estate away from the buyer for her ketubah as prior mortgage holder, the daughters cannot since their claim was created only at their father’s death, when the sons already were legal owners of the property.
The same statement by R. Assi (= Yasa) in the name of R. Joḥanan is in the Babli, 103a.. So here, if it increased in value, their property value increased⁶⁴The daughters cannot acquire any rights to the inheritance which they did not have immediately upon their father’s death.. If the estate was not sufficient for twelve months’ sustenance, may the sons say to the daughters, take what is yours and leave⁶⁵If there was more than enough to sustain the daughters but not enough for daughters and sons together, can the sons pay the daughters and take the remainder as inheritance?! Rebbi Abba said, is that a question? The Mishnah says that they cannot say so to them, as we have stated there⁶⁶Mishnah 10:2.: “If the orphans say, we accept the properties of our father for the value of an extra denar in order to take their mother’s ketubah; one does not listen to them but one appraises the properties in court.”