Talmud for Ketubot 6:2

As you say, after deduction for her ketubah, after deduction of burial costs, after deduction of loans by witnesses or by contract⁶⁷The value of the estate is computed only after all liens and debts have been deducted.. After deduction for daughters’ dowries? For him⁶⁸In Halakhah 6:6, R. Ḥanina holds that daughters’ dowries are privileged, R. Joḥanan that they are not privileged. One would assume that practice would follow R. Joḥanan, but in Baba batra daughters’ dowries are listed together with the ketubah and outstanding loans as diminishing the free portion of the estate used to determine whether it is “small” or “large”. who says, one forecloses from mortgaged property for daughters’ dowries, the dowries are privileged. For him who says, one does not foreclose from mortgaged property for daughters’ dowries, the dowries are not privileged. Let us hear from the following⁶⁹This does not refer to any discussion; it introduces a new topic.: The widow and the sons are of equal rank⁷⁰If the widow decides not to claim her ketubah, her claim of support by the estate is of equal weight with that of sons and daughters.. The widow and the daughters are of equal rank. The widow does not push the sons aside and the widow does not push the daughters aside. How is that? If there was enough for 12 months sustenance and a widow to sustain⁷¹If there was just enough to sustain sons and daughters for 12 months but the widow also claims sustenance, then widow and daughters are sustained and the sons do not get anything.. That explains that sometimes the widow pushes out the sons by means of the daughters. Just as she pushes out the sons by means of the daughters, should she not push them out by means of the sons⁷²This text does not make much sense. The text in Baba batra is in worse shape, but the original meaning can be gleaned from it even if the original text is lost irretrievably: פְּעָמִים שֶׁאַלְמָנָה דוֹחָה אֶת הַבָּנוֹת עַל יְדֵי הַבָּנִים. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהָאַלְמָנָה דוֹחָה לְבָנוֹת עַל יְדֵי בָנִים כֶּן תִּדְחֶה אַלמָנָה לְבָנִים. “Sometimes the widow pushes out the daughters by means of the sons. Just as the widow pushes out the daughters by means of the sons, should she not push the sons out?” Since clearly here the roles of “sons” and “daughters” are exchanged, the question is whether the widow’s sustenance should not preempt the daughters’ if the estate is not sufficient for all of them.? She might claim her ketubah and lose her right to sustenance⁷³Her claim to sustenance is conditional; it cannot override the claim of the daughters which is absolute. The Babli disagrees, 43a, and declares that the claim of the widow precedes that of the daughter..

HALAKHAH: “ ‘A qônām that I shall not work according to the wishes of my father,’ etc. There, we have stated⁴⁹Mishnah Ketubot 5:4. The husband dedicated the wife’s income from her work to the Temple. He cannot dispose of what she needs for her livelihood. The question is only about what she earns in excess of her needs. The text of the first part of the paragraph is in Ketubot 5:5 in slightly extended form; the parallel discussion in the Babli Ketubot 58b–59a.: “If somebody dedicates his wife’s work, she works and eats. The excess? Rebbi Meїr says, it is dedicated; Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian said, it is profane.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they disagree about the excess over five tetradrachmas⁵⁰It is stated in Mishnah Ketubot5:9 that the husband has to give his wife a silver obolus every week as pocket money. If he does not give it, the Mishnah states that he has lost his claim to her earnings (and his dedication is void since nobody can dedicate what is not his.) He can also require her to spin wool in the weight of 5 Judean tetradrachmas.. He explains it in the case of one who supports his wife with food but does not give her an obolus for her needs⁵¹He holds that R. Meїr, who is the presumed author of an anonymous Mishnah, states that spinning the 5 tetradrachmas is for the silver obolus she receives, and the excess of her work is for the food the husband provides. In the case considered here, the husband has no right to the value of the first 5 tetradrachma weights of her spinning but he can dedicate all the excess. R. Joḥanan the Alexandrian will hold that the 5 tetradrachmas will pay for the food and the excess for the pocket money, then the excess is the wife’s property and the husband has no right to dedicate it., as we stated: “If he does not give her an obolus for her needs, what she earns is hers”. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they disagree about the excess left after [the husband’s] death; for he explains it if he does not support her with food⁵²He explains an arrangement that the wife takes neither food nor money from the husband and retains all her earnings for herself. In that case, the husband has no say about her earnings. But if she dies before him, he inherits from her and can dedicate what he wishes. (In the Babli, Ketubot 58b, this is Samuel’s position.) R. Joḥanan the Alexandrian holds that nobody can dedicate anything not in his possession; therefore, any disposition of his future inheritance which he makes during her lifetime is void.. But if he supports her with food, everybody agrees that it became dedicated⁵³R. Joḥanan holds that the spinning of the first 5 tetradrachmas pays for food and pocket money. Therefore, anything in excess is unincumbered property of the husband.. And here, he cannot dissolve! Rebbi Meїr says. he does not have to dissolve⁵⁴Since she is obligated, she cannot avoid an obligation by a vow.. Rebbi Joḥanan the Alexandrian said, hers. Rebbi Aqiba said, hers. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, his⁵⁵R Joḥanan the Alexandrian in Ketubot and R. Aqiba in Nedarim both hold that the excess work of the wife belongs to the wife. Therefore, R. Aqiba requires the husband to dissolve the vow lest the wife give to her husband from her earnings and break her vow. But R. Joḥanan ben Nuri holds that the excess is the husband’s; therefore he only counsels the husband to dissolve to permit him to take his wife back after a divorce..