Yerushalmi Ketubot 8:10 ירושלמי כתובות ח׳:י׳

MISHNAH: If his brother left money, real estate should be bought with it and he eats its yield⁶⁶Since the first husband’s inheritance is mortgaged to his widow as security for her ketubah, it is not available to the brother who marries the widow without due safeguards.. ⁶⁷These rules follow Mishnah 4. For produce cut from the ground, real estate should be bought and he eats its yield; connected to the ground, Rebbi Meïr says one has to estimate how much it is worth with produce and how much without, for the difference real estate should be bought and he eats its yield. But the Sages say, standing produce is his⁶⁸The Halakhah and the Babli (82a) change the text of the Mishnah and require: “are hers” for the same reason given for money left by her husband., cut it is up for grabs⁶⁹This applies only if one follows the Mishnah that a ketubah is guaranteed only by real estate. The author of this part of the Mishnah must hold that the statement about money left was R. Meïr’s who holds that a ketubah can be guaranteed and paid for by movables.. If he⁷⁰The levir as heir of his brother. It is clear that a person without claim (i. e., other than the widow, a brother, or a creditor) has no right to the produce. took possession first, it is his; if she took possession first⁷¹It becomes property coming to the wife after the wedding, i. e., paraphernalia property., real estate should be bought for the proceeds and he eats its yield. ⁷²This is Mishnah Yebamot 4:4, Note 96. If he married her, she is his wife in every respect⁷³He can divorce and remarry her; Halakhah Yebamot 4:4, Notes 97–100. except that her ketubah is a lien on the property of her first husband.

HALAKHAH: “If his brother left money,” etc. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is necessary, if the money was deposited with him⁷⁴Since the Mishnah states at the end that the ketubah in a levirate marriage is guaranteed by the estate and Mishnah 11 states that all the property is under this lien, it seems superfluous to note that cash left by the first husband cannot be spent by the levir. Then it is noted that it is necessary to state that money deposited with the levir has to be accounted for and separated for the wife’s ketubah. In the Babli, 81b, this is an explicit baraita., that you would not let him say, since I am the heir it is mine.

Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One does not say “his”⁷⁶Since the widow’s ketubah is guaranteed by her first husband’s estate, there is no reason why the standing grain should go to the levir. If the husband had lived, it would have been his, but it could not be the levir’s before the latter actually married the widow. One has to correct the Mishnah to hers from his. This argument is R. Simeon ben Laqish’s in the Babli, 82a. but [ ]⁷⁷The word “hers” is missing in ms. and editio princeps; it is understood in the text.. In which respect? In case the heir took it⁷⁸If the levir harvested the grain without crediting it to the widow’s ketubah fund, she can go to court and have him acquire real estate for the corresponding amount., one removes it from his hand. Does one have the same rule for the creditor? Was it not stated: If either the heir or the creditor took it, one takes it from their hands⁷⁹The same statement is quoted in Halakhah 9:3; there the scribe wrote: “one does not remove from their hands”, but the first corrector crossed out “not”. In both cases, the context implies that the scribe’s original text is the correct one. Since the heir does not have a claim on the standing grain, the heir’s creditor does not have one either.? Rebbi Aḥa bar Ulla said, let us hear from the following: “If he dedicated 90 minas but his debt was 100 minas, [the creditor] adds another denar and redeems these properties.⁸⁰It is stated repeatedly in the Babli (Yebamot 46a,66b; Giṭṭin 40b; Ketubot 59b, Nedarim 86b; Baba Qama90a) that dedications to the Temple break contracts. This rule is not mentioned in the Yerushalmi and the latter’s position in this matter is not known. In Rashi’s interpretation, only dedications to the altar break contracts, not dedications which are purely monetary gifts to Temple or charity. Therefore, that principle does not apply here in any case.
The text is Mishnah ‘Arakhin 6:2. There it is stated that if somebody dedicates his encumbered property, neither can the wife collect her ketubah nor a creditor his claim from Temple property which must first be redeemed. Then it is stated that if the creditor’s claim is at least equal to the appraised value of the property, he may lend another denar to the debtor and force him to redeem it to be able to foreclose the now secular property.” Not necessarily a denar, but anything, that a dedication should not be seen to be profanated without redemption⁸¹This is a generally accepted principle; Babli Arakhin 32b, Pesaḥim31a. The redemption is purely symbolical since the debtor did not have the right to injure the creditor’s claim by dedication; therefore, the dedication is invalid.. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: One would be guilty of complete larceny⁸²Me‘ilah is larceny with Temple property which requires restitution in the amount of 125% and a sacrifice; Lev. 5:14–16. R. Joḥanan implies that a person using the dedicated property for his personal advantage before it was redeemed is obligated for a sacrifice. On the other hand, it is sinful to offer unnecessary sacrifices which would be ”profane animals in the Temple courtyard.” If the sacrifice is valid then the dedication must be valid and could not be undone by a token amount but would require appraisal by a Cohen (Lev. 27:11–14).. That is difficult. If one would be guilty of complete larceny, should if not be redeemed for its full value? If it can be redeemed for less than its full value, one should not be guilty of complete larceny! What are we talking about? If it is connected to the ground, can there be larceny about real estate⁸³Lev. 5:14 restricts me‘ilah to “the Eternal’s holy things”, which excludes real estate.? But we talk about standing grain⁸⁴This is not subject to me‘ilah when standing but will be subject once it is cut.. Since if the administrator⁸⁵The Temple’s chief financial officer. Since the dedication was invalid when made for the field, he should not have cut the grain. But once it was cut, it becomes legitimate Temple property and can be sold for the Temple’s upkeep. misbehaved and took it, one does not take it from his hand; the administrator and the heir follow the same rule⁸⁶This does not mean that the levir can take the standing grain, cut it, and keep it, but that the their’s standing vis-à-vis the creditor is like the administrator’s vis-à-vis the creditor. Since the creditor’s lien is on the real estate, it cannot cover the grain once it is cut and made movable. (Cf. the commentary RYDBZ ad loc. in the Wilna ed., and the novellae of Rashba, Giṭṭin 40b, end.). Also if the heir misbehaved and took it, one does not take it from his hand. Rebbi Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The same rule holds for an ox. Can you say that an ox is real estate⁸⁷Since the ox is movable, the dedication should be absolute.? Rebbi Tanḥum bar Mari in the name of Rebbi Yose: They made the rules for an ox parallel those of dedications that lost their value⁸⁸This is a rabbinical rule to protect the holders of chattel mortgages.. Here, you say one takes it from his hand, but there you say, one does not take it from his hand⁸⁹This is the main question of this paragraph: Since the heir can cut the grain to the detriment of the lienholder, why can he not cut the grain to the detriment of the widow who also is a lienholder?. Since you diminished the woman’s power in that her ketubah is a lien only on the properties of her first husband, you strengthened her power in this matter that if the heir came and took it, one removes it from his hand. It was stated thus: Trees and cutting, old or young, one removes from their hands.