Yevamot 38: Inheritance in Uncertain Circumstances

When it is uncertain whether or not a grown man is the child of a deceased father or the child of a yavam (because the man's mother may have become pregnant before or after participating in yibum), we run into many problems.  Yesterday those problems associated with the adult son being a mamzer, or one of uncertain lineage.  Today we focus in on inheritance.

The rabbis discuss a number of different cases.  Each case allows us to understand the intricacies of decision-making in uncertain circumstances.  Halachot of inheritance teach that inheritance is given to heirs.  Without heirs, it is split within the family along generational lines.  For example, a father's inheritance is split between his sons.  Would the heir in question (the son of the deceased father or possibly the son of the yavam) be given a larger portion of his deceased father's inheritance, for he is that man's son, or should he receive a smaller portion of inheritance only after the yavam and his other brothers have split the wealth?

A new Mishna brings us back to the experience of the yevama.  Both Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai agree that she is permitted to sell her property or belongings ab initio while she is waiting for her yavam to consummate their yibum.  However, they disagree on the status of her property if she dies while waiting.  Beit Shammai says that it is divided between the yavam and her family.  Beit Hillel says that all possessions maintain their status: the ketubah stays with the yavam, and property that entered the marriage with the yevama remains with her family.  Once the yevama and the yavam are married, the usual property laws are in effect.  The only exception is that the ketubah is payable from her first husband's property rather than from the yavam's property.

The Gemara is a discussion among Ulla, Rabba, Abaye and Rava.  They uses cases and arguments to clarify Beit Shammai's assertions.  In doing this they examine the details of betrothal, the strength of the levirate bond, creditors, and other concepts critical to this discussion.   To elucidate the concept of uncertain claims, they tell the story of a man and his father who die when a house collapses.  The man owes money.  We do not know who died first.  If the man died first, then all debts were forgiven.  If the father died first, the son immediately inherited and thus the man's wife and creditors can petition the father's heirs for money owed by the son.

The rabbis look at the case of a sota whose husband dies before she drinks the bitter waters that will determine whether or not she is entitled to her ketubah.  Beit Shammai suggests that she is allowed to collect her ketubah and does not drink the waters if her husband has died.  Beit Hillel disagrees: she can cannot drink the waters because her husband is not there to bring her to the waters as is commanded.  Thus she is unable to collect her ketubah.

Abaye speaks about the value of a ketubah.  Does a woman become more or less desirable when she carries the relative wealth of a ketubah?  In our notes, the rabbis debate about whether or not the ketubah was created for women.  Women are more valuable and thus protected if they bring money with them into their new marriages.  Or, perhaps, because women can't bear being alone, the ketubah is an assurance for women that men will want to think very carefully before divorcing their wives.  Then again, the ketubah may include the lowest value of men's possessions to convince men to marry.

In the past I have learned about ketubot as ancient, progressive protection for women. It would seem that the contract may be more complex that that.  The rabbis recognize that the ketubah may be very different from other contracts regarding debt.

I am finding it painful to think about the women who were living with these laws fifteen hundred years ago.  Of course they did not want to be alone; they were unprotected legally and physically from the very real threats in their world.  And this group of rabbis was creating a legal structure that systematically excluded and silenced them while stating that they were protecting women.