Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

October 3, 2022 | 讞壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖驻状讙

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Ketubot 89

Today’s daf is sponsored by聽RachaelBentley. “聽May you be blessed with a sweet, healthy New Year!”

What happens when a woman wants to collect her ketuba but she only has a get (divorce document) in hand and no ketuba? Since the court determined that every woman is deserving of a ketuba, even if she doesn’t have one, she can collect the ketuba with the get. What about the opposite case where she only has a ketuba and not a get? Because she doesn’t have a get, we assume she already received the money and it was ripped up and therefore she is not believed, even if she claimed she lost it, if the husband claims he lost his receipt that he paid her. According to Rashbag, the halacha changed because of the danger from the gentiles and they would immediately tear up the get even without her collecting the ketuba. Is it possible to infer from the Mishna that it is necessary to write a receipt for the debtor in cases of a ketuba or loans? Rav and Shmuel say that we do not need to infer this from the Mishna and each explains the case in the Mishna differently and why we are not concerned that she will claim her ketuba money twice. Rav also changed his position and brought a different way of understanding things. Some questions are raised against the second position of Rav, but are answered.

讙讜讘讛 讻转讜讘转讛

she collects payment of her marriage contract, and he cannot claim that he already paid it.

讻转讜讘讛 讜讗讬谉 注诪讛 讙讟 讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 讗讘讚 讙讬讟讬 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗讘讚 砖讜讘专讬 讜讻谉 讘注诇 讞讜讘 砖讛讜爪讬讗 砖讟专 讞讜讘 讜讗讬谉 注诪讜 驻专讜讝讘讜诇 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诇讗 讬驻专注讜

If she produced a marriage contract, and it was unaccompanied by a bill of divorce, and she says: My bill of divorce was lost, and he says: Just as your bill of divorce was lost, so too my receipt for the payment of your marriage contract was lost; and likewise, in a case of a creditor who produced a promissory note after the Sabbatical Year, unaccompanied by a document that prevents the Sabbatical Year from forgiving an outstanding debt [prosbol], and demanded payment of the debt, these debts may not be collected.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪谉 讛住讻谞讛 讜讗讬诇讱 讗砖讛 讙讜讘讛 讻转讜讘转讛 砖诇讗 讘讙讟 讜讘注诇 讞讜讘 讙讜讘讛 砖诇讗 讘驻专讜讝讘讜诇

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: From the time of danger and onward, after the ruling authorities banned the performance of mitzvot, people would destroy a bill of divorce or a prosbol immediately after they were signed, a woman collects payment of her marriage contract without a bill of divorce, and a creditor collects debts owed to him without a prosbol. The assumption is that due to the circumstances these documents were written but were not preserved.

讙诪壮 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专 讚讗讬 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专 诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 诪驻拽讗 诇讛 诇讻转讜讘转讛 讜讙讘讬讗 讘讛

GEMARA: Conclude from the mishna that when one repays a debt, the creditor writes a receipt and gives it to the debtor as proof of payment, as, if one does not write a receipt, then in the case in the mishna where she receives payment of her marriage contract by producing her bill of divorce, let us be concerned lest she produce her marriage contract in a different court and collect payment with it a second time. In the absence of a receipt, the husband cannot prove that the debt was paid.

讗诪专 专讘 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讻转讜讘讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗祝 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讻讜转讘讬谉 讻转讜讘讛

Rav said: That is no proof, as we are dealing with a place where one does not write a marriage contract. In those places, there is a general stipulation of the Sages that a husband must pay his wife the sum of the marriage contract even if no document was written. Therefore, there is no concern lest she produce the marriage contract at a later stage. And Shmuel said that the mishna is referring even to a place where one writes a marriage contract, which she claims to have lost.

讜诇砖诪讜讗诇 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专 讗诪专 专讘 注谞谉 诇讚讬讚讬 诪讬驻专砖讗 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讜讗诪专 讻转讘转讬 注诇讬讜 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讻讜转讘讬谉 讜讗诪专讛 诇讗 讻转讘 诇讬 注诇讬讛 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛

The Gemara asks: And according to Shmuel, does one in fact write a receipt? Rav Anan said: It was explained to me personally by the Sage Shmuel himself: The mishna is addressing two different cases. In a place where one does not write a marriage contract and the husband said: I wrote a marriage contract, it is incumbent upon him to bring proof that he wrote one. In that case, she cannot collect payment without producing the document. In a place where one writes a marriage contract and she said: He did not write one for me, she must bring proof that he did not write a marriage contract. Only then can she collect payment without one.

讜讗祝 专讘 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讘讬谉 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讻讜转讘讬谉 讘讬谉 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讙讟 讙讜讘讛 注讬拽专 讻转讜讘讛 讙讜讘讛 转讜住驻转 讜讻诇 讛专讜爪讛 诇讛砖讬讘 讬讘讗 讜讬砖讬讘

And even Rav retracted his interpretation of the mishna, as Rav said the following ruling: Both in a place where one writes a marriage contract and in a place where one does not write a marriage contract, if she produces only a bill of divorce, she collects the main sum of the marriage contract. The Sages established minimum sums to serve as the principal payment of the marriage contract: Two hundred dinars for a virgin and one hundred for a non-virgin. If she produces a marriage contract that specifies a larger sum, she collects only the additional sum and not the main sum, as there is a concern that she collected the main sum previously by producing the bill of divorce. And whoever wishes to challenge this solution, let him come and challenge it. There is no longer any possibility of deceit, as she will gain nothing by producing the marriage contract in a second court after having collected her marriage contract by producing her bill of divorce in a first court.

转谞谉 讻转讜讘讛 讜讗讬谉 注诪讛 讙讟 讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 讗讘讚 讙讬讟讬 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗讘讚 砖讜讘专讬 讜讻谉 讘注诇 讞讜讘 砖讛讜爪讬讗 砖讟专 讞讜讘 讜讗讬谉 注诪讜 驻专讜讝讘讜诇 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诇讗 讬驻专注讜

The Gemara objects: We learned in the mishna: If she produced a marriage contract, and it was unaccompanied by a bill of divorce, and she says: My bill of divorce was lost, and he says: Just as your bill of divorce was lost, so too my receipt for the payment of your marriage contract was lost; and likewise, in a case of a creditor who produced a promissory note after the Sabbatical Year, unaccompanied by a prosbol, and demanded payment of the debt, these debts may not be collected.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 诪讜拽讬 诇讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讜讗诪专 讻转讘转讬 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讬讬转讬 专讗讬讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 诪讬讬转讬 专讗讬讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 驻专注讬讛

The Gemara presents the question: Granted, according to Shmuel, this is reasonable. He establishes the mishna as referring to a place where the common practice is that one does not write a marriage contract, and the husband previously had said: I wrote one, and therefore did not want to pay the marriage contract when she produced the bill of divorce, as he was concerned that she would later produce the marriage contract and demand payment again. As in that case we say to him, according to Shmuel: Bring proof that you wrote a marriage contract, and if he does not bring proof, we say to him: Go and pay her based on the bill of divorce. Now, when she produces her marriage contract and the husband claims that he paid her by means of the bill of divorce and has lost the receipt, the mishna rules that this debt cannot be collected.

讗诇讗 诇专讘 谞讛讬 讚注讬拽专 诇讗 讙讘讬讗 转讜住驻转 诪讬讛讗 转讬讙讘讬

The Gemara completes the question: However, according to Rav, why does the mishna state that the debt cannot be collected? Although she cannot now collect the main sum of her marriage contract, because he can claim that she already received this sum in a different court by means of her bill of divorce, she should be able to collect the additional sum by virtue of the marriage contract, as she could not have received that by producing the bill of divorce alone.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻砖讗讬谉 砖诐 注讚讬 讙讬专讜砖讬谉 诪讬讙讜 讚讬讻讜诇 诇诪讬诪专 诇讗 讙讬专砖转讬讛

Rav Yosef said: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where there are no witnesses to the divorce present there. Since the husband can say: I did not divorce her and she is entitled to nothing,

讬讻讜诇 诇诪讬诪专 讙讬专砖转讬讛 讜谞转转讬 诇讛 讻转讜讘转讛

he can also say: I divorced her and gave her the payment of her marriage contract.

讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪谉 讛住讻谞讛 讜讗讬诇讱 讗砖讛 讙讜讘讛 讻转讜讘转讛 砖诇讗 讘讙讟 讜讘注诇 讞讜讘 砖诇讗 讘驻专讜讝讘讜诇 讘讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬 讙讬专讜砖讬谉 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗讬 诇讬讻讗 注讚讬 讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讘诪讗讬 讙讘讬讗

The Gemara asks: From the fact that the last clause of the mishna teaches that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: From the time of danger and onward, a woman collects payment of her marriage contract without a bill of divorce, and a creditor collects payment without a prosbol, apparently we are dealing with a case when there are witnesses to the divorce. As, if there are no witnesses to the divorce, with what proof does she collect the marriage contract? The mishna must be referring to a case where there are witnesses present, and therefore the husband cannot claim that he never divorced her.

讗诇讗 讻讜诇讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讬讗 讜讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诇讗 讬驻专注讜 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讻砖讗讬谉 砖诐 注讚讬 讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讗讘诇 讬砖 砖诐 注讚讬 讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讙讘讬讗 转讜住驻转 讜注讬拽专 讗讬 诪驻拽讗 讙讬讟讗 讙讘讬讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 诪驻拽讗 讙讬讟讗 诇讗 讙讘讬讗

Rather, the Gemara rejects the previous explanation and explains: The entire mishna is according to the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and the mishna is incomplete and is this is what it is teaching: These debts may not be collected. In what case is this statement said? It is when there are no witnesses to the divorce present there. However, if there are witnesses to the divorce present there, she collects the additional sum listed in the document and not the main sum, lest she later produce the bill of divorce and demand payment a second time. And as for the main sum of the marriage contract, if she produces a bill of divorce, she collects it. But if she does not produce a bill of divorce, she does not collect it.

讜诪谉 讛住讻谞讛 讜讗讬诇讱 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 诪驻拽讗 讙讬讟讗 讙讘讬讗 砖专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪住讻谞讛 讜讗讬诇讱 讗砖讛 讙讜讘讛 讻转讜讘转讛 砖诇讗 讘讙讟 讜讘注诇 讞讜讘 砖诇讗 讘驻专讜讝讘讜诇

The Gemara continues the modified version of the mishna: And from the time of danger and onward, even if she does not produce a bill of divorce, she collects the main sum of her marriage contract as well, as Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: From the time of danger and onward a woman collects payment of her marriage contract without a bill of divorce, and a creditor collects payment without a prosbol.

讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜专讘 讗住讬 诇专讘 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 讙讟 讙讜讘讛 注讬拽专 讗诇诪谞讛 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 讘诪讗讬 讙讘讬讗 讘注讚讬 诪讬转讛 讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讙讬专砖讛 讜诪驻拽讗 诇讙讬讟讗 讜讙讘讬讗 讘讬讛 讘讬讜砖讘转 转讞转 讘注诇讛

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: According to your opinion, that you said that a woman who produces a bill of divorce collects the main sum, then in the case of a widow from marriage, with what proof does she collect the main sum of her marriage contract, as she has no bill of divorce? She can claim the main sum with witnesses to his death. But shouldn鈥檛 we be concerned that perhaps he divorced her before he passed away, and after receiving her marriage contract by means of the witnesses to his death, she will produce the bill of divorce he gave her and collect payment with it a second time? Rav answered: She can collect payment with witnesses to her husband鈥檚 death only when she was living under the jurisdiction of her husband the entire time, and it is clear that he did not divorce her.

讜讚诇诪讗 住诪讜讱 诇诪讬转讛 讙讬专砖讛 讗讬讛讜 讛讜讗 讚讗驻住讬讚 讗谞驻砖讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But perhaps he divorced her near his death, in which case it is not known that she was divorced. She could then demand payment for her marriage contract twice. The Gemara answers: In that case, it is he who caused his own loss, by failing to inform others of the divorce, and it is not necessary to be concerned that such a situation could occur.

讗诇诪谞讛 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讘诪讗讬 讙讘讬讗 讘注讚讬 诪讬转讛 讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讙讬专砖讛 讜诪驻拽讗 讙讬讟讗 讜讙讘讬讗

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi asked Rav another question: With what proof can a widow from betrothal collect her marriage contract? She can collect the payment with witnesses to his death. But once again, shouldn鈥檛 we be concerned that perhaps he divorced her beforehand, and after receiving her marriage contract based on the evidence of the witnesses, she will produce the bill of divorce he gave her and collect a second time with it? Since a betrothed woman does not live with her husband, there would be no indication that he had divorced her.

讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讻转讘讬谞谉 砖讜讘专 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 注讚讬 诪讬转讛 讙讜驻讬讬讛讜 谞讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 诪驻拽讗 注讚讬 诪讬转讛 讘讛讗讬 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讜讙讘讬讗 讜讛讚专 诪驻拽讗 讘讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜讙讘讬讗 讗诇讗 讜讚讗讬 讘诪拽讜诐 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讻转讘讬谞谉 砖讜讘专

Rather, it must be that wherever it is not possible otherwise to know if a woman already received her marriage contract, one writes a receipt, as if you do not say so with regard to the witnesses to his death themselves, we should be concerned that perhaps she will bring out witnesses to his death in this court and collect payment for her marriage contract, and again bring out witnesses in a different court and collect payment for her marriage contract a second time. This could continue many times. Rather, it must certainly be the case that wherever it is not possible otherwise to know if a woman already received her marriage contract, one writes a receipt.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 拽砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗诇诪谞讛 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 诪谞诇谉 讚讗讬转 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讛讗 谞转讗专诪诇讛 讗讜 谞转讙专砖讛 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛讻诇 讚诇诪讗 讚讻转讘 诇讛

Mar the Elder, son of Rav 岣sda, said to Rav Ashi: From where do we know that a widow from betrothal has a marriage contract? Perhaps the Sages instituted the marriage contract only for married women. If we say that it is derived from this mishna (54b): If a woman is widowed or divorced, whether from betrothal or whether from marriage, she collects the entire amount of her marriage contract, including the additional sum, this mishna is not proof. Perhaps the mishna is referring to a case where he wrote a marriage contract for her on his own accord. That does not prove that there is an enactment of the Sages that a husband must write a marriage contract for his betrothed.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讬 讻转讘 诇讛 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖诇讗 讻转讘 诇讛 讗诇讗 注诇 诪谞转 砖讛讜讗 讻讜谞住讛

And if you would say in response that if that mishna is referring to a case where he wrote the marriage contract for her, what is the purpose of stating that she collects the entire sum, since it is clear that she receives the full amount, as she has the document in her possession; perhaps this is meant to exclude the statement of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who said that a betrothed woman who was divorced or widowed is not entitled to the additional sum written in the marriage contract, as the groom wrote this additional amount for her only in order to marry her.

讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛讻诇 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讚讻转讘 诇讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛讻诇 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讚诇讗 讻转讘 诇讛 诪讗讬 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛讻诇 诪谞讛 诪讗转讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讗讬转 诇讛

The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise, that it is referring to a case where he wrote the marriage contract for her, as it teaches: She collects the entire amount. Granted, if you say that he wrote a marriage contract for her, it is due to that reason that she collects the entire amount, both the main sum and additional sum written in the marriage contract. But if you say that he did not write a marriage contract for her, and she collects a payment only because of the rabbinic ordinance, what is the meaning of: She collects the entire sum? She has only one hundred dinars or two hundred dinars, as enacted by the Sages, and no more. The phrase: Entire sum, is inappropriate according to this opinion.

讜讗诇讗 诪讚转谞讬 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗砖转讜 讗专讜住讛 诇讗 讗讜谞谉 讜诇讗 诪讬讟诪讗 诇讛 讜讻谉 讛讬讗 诇讗 讗讜谞谞转 讜诇讗 诪讬讟诪讗讛 诇讜 诪转讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讜专砖讛 诪转 讛讜讗 讙讜讘讛 讻转讜讘转讛

But rather, the proof that a widow from betrothal receives a marriage contract is from that which was taught by Rav 岣yya bar Avin: Upon the death of one鈥檚 betrothed wife, he does not receive the status of an acute mourner, one whose close relative has died but has not yet been buried, nor become impure if he is a priest. And likewise, she neither receives the status of an acute mourner nor becomes impure for him. If she dies, he does not inherit from her. If he dies, she collects payment of her marriage contract. This shows that a widow from betrothal receives a marriage contract.

讚诇诪讗 讚讻转讘 诇讛 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讬 讻转讘 诇讛 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪转讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讜专砖讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara refutes this proof in the same manner as before: Perhaps this is referring to a case where he wrote a marriage contract for her on his own accord. And if you would say in response that if that mishna is referring to a case where he wrote the marriage contract for her, what is the purpose of stating that she collects the payment, as this is obvious and teaches nothing new; perhaps it was necessary for him to mention that despite the fact that the man wrote a marriage contract for her, if she dies, he does not inherit from her. The discussion concludes without a source for the halakha that a widow from betrothal receives a marriage contract.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 讙讟 讙讜讘讛 注讬拽专 诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 诪驻拽讗 讙讬讟讗 讘讛讗讬 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讜讙讘讬讗 讜讛讚专讗 诪驻拽讗 讘讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜讙讘讬讗 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚拽专注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗诪专讛 讘注讬谞讗 诇讗谞住讜讘讬 讘讬讛

Rav Na岣an said to Rav Huna: According to Rav, who said that if she produces a bill of divorce she can collect the main sum of her marriage contract, shouldn鈥檛 there be a concern lest she produce the bill of divorce in this court and collect with it, and again produce it in a different court and collect with it? And should you say that we tear it, as the court does to other documents that have been paid, she will not let us do so, for she will say: I do not want you to tear the bill of divorce because I need it, so that when I want to marry again I can prove with it that I am divorced.

讚拽专注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜讻转讘讬谞谉 讗讙讘讬讛 讙讬讟讗 讚谞谉 拽专注谞讜讛讬 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讙讬讟讗 驻住讜诇 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 转讬讛讚专 讜转讬讙讘讬 讘讬讛 讝诪谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗

Rav Huna responded: The solution is that we tear it and write the following on its back: We tore this bill of divorce, not because it is an invalid bill of divorce, but in order that she not return and collect with it another time.

诪转谞讬壮 砖谞讬 讙讬讟讬谉 讜砖转讬 讻转讜讘讜转 讙讜讘讛 砖转讬 讻转讜讘讜转

MISHNA: If a woman had two bills of divorce and two marriage contracts as a result of her divorce and remarriage to the same man, the fact that she is in possession of these documents proves that she was never paid for her first marriage contract, and she collects two marriage contracts.

砖转讬 讻转讜讘讜转 讜讙讟 讗讞讚 讗讜 讻转讜讘讛 讜砖谞讬 讙讟讬谉 讗讜 讻转讜讘讛 讜讙讟 讜诪讬转讛 讗讬谞讛 讙讜讘讛 讗诇讗 讻转讜讘讛 讗讞转 砖讛诪讙专砖 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜讛讞讝讬专讛 注诇 诪谞转 讻转讜讘讛 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 诪讞讝讬专讛

If she was in possession of two marriage contracts and only one bill of divorce; or if she had one marriage contract and two bills of divorce; or if she had a marriage contract, a bill of divorce, and witnesses to her husband鈥檚 death after their remarriage, she collects payment of only one marriage contract. This is because there is a presumption that one who divorces his wife and remarries her, remarries her with the intention of using her first marriage contract, and she agrees that she collects payment of only the original document. This is the presumption, unless he wrote another marriage contract for her.

讙诪壮 讗讬 讘注讬讗 讘讛讗讬 讙讘讬讗 讗讬 讘注讬讗 讘讛讗讬 讙讘讬讗

GEMARA: The mishna states that if she had two marriage contracts and one bill of divorce, she can collect only one marriage contract. However, it does not specify which marriage contract she can claim. Does this mean that if she desires, she can collect payment of the marriage contract with this one, and if she desires, she can collect payment with that one? In that case, if she prefers she can use the document that promises the larger sum, and if she prefers to use the marriage contract with the earlier date in order to be able to collect property that her husband had sold to others between the dates on the two documents, she may collect with that one.

诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖谞讬 砖讟专讜转 讛讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讘讬讟诇 砖谞讬 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谉

The Gemara asks: If that is the case, let us say that it is a conclusive refutation of a statement that Rav Na岣an said that Shmuel said, as Rav Na岣an said that Shmuel said: If there are two documents that are issued one after the other, each recording the same transaction of a sale or a gift and they are separated by a few days, it is assumed that the second document cancels the first one. Why not say in this case as well that the second marriage contract voids the first one?

诇讗讜 讗转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗讬 讗讜住讬祝 讘讬讛 讚讬拽诇讗 诇转讜住驻转 讻转讘讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘讚讗讜住讬祝 诇讛

The Gemara answers: Was it not stated with regard to the halakha Shmuel quoted in the name of Rav Na岣an that Rav Pappa said: And Rav Na岣an concedes that if he added to the transaction detailed in the second document a palm tree that was not mentioned in the first document, this shows that he did not intend to cancel the first document. Rather, he wrote the second document as an addition to the first document. Here too, the Gemara is dealing with a case when he added an additional sum for her in the second marriage contract. This proves that he wanted to add to the first marriage contract, and not to void it.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讜爪讬讗讛 讙讟 讜讻转讜讘讛 讜诪讬转讛

The Sages taught: If she produced a bill of divorce, a marriage contract, and witnesses to her husband鈥檚 death,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Ketubot: 85-92 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about loans, oaths, and inheritance. The Gemara teaches when the orphans can make their mother...
talking talmud_square

Ketubot 89: Why We Want Paperwor

A new mishnah - a case of a woman who has her get, but has not yet received her ketubah....

Ketubot 89

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 89

讙讜讘讛 讻转讜讘转讛

she collects payment of her marriage contract, and he cannot claim that he already paid it.

讻转讜讘讛 讜讗讬谉 注诪讛 讙讟 讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 讗讘讚 讙讬讟讬 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗讘讚 砖讜讘专讬 讜讻谉 讘注诇 讞讜讘 砖讛讜爪讬讗 砖讟专 讞讜讘 讜讗讬谉 注诪讜 驻专讜讝讘讜诇 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诇讗 讬驻专注讜

If she produced a marriage contract, and it was unaccompanied by a bill of divorce, and she says: My bill of divorce was lost, and he says: Just as your bill of divorce was lost, so too my receipt for the payment of your marriage contract was lost; and likewise, in a case of a creditor who produced a promissory note after the Sabbatical Year, unaccompanied by a document that prevents the Sabbatical Year from forgiving an outstanding debt [prosbol], and demanded payment of the debt, these debts may not be collected.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪谉 讛住讻谞讛 讜讗讬诇讱 讗砖讛 讙讜讘讛 讻转讜讘转讛 砖诇讗 讘讙讟 讜讘注诇 讞讜讘 讙讜讘讛 砖诇讗 讘驻专讜讝讘讜诇

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: From the time of danger and onward, after the ruling authorities banned the performance of mitzvot, people would destroy a bill of divorce or a prosbol immediately after they were signed, a woman collects payment of her marriage contract without a bill of divorce, and a creditor collects debts owed to him without a prosbol. The assumption is that due to the circumstances these documents were written but were not preserved.

讙诪壮 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专 讚讗讬 讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专 诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 诪驻拽讗 诇讛 诇讻转讜讘转讛 讜讙讘讬讗 讘讛

GEMARA: Conclude from the mishna that when one repays a debt, the creditor writes a receipt and gives it to the debtor as proof of payment, as, if one does not write a receipt, then in the case in the mishna where she receives payment of her marriage contract by producing her bill of divorce, let us be concerned lest she produce her marriage contract in a different court and collect payment with it a second time. In the absence of a receipt, the husband cannot prove that the debt was paid.

讗诪专 专讘 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讻转讜讘讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗祝 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讻讜转讘讬谉 讻转讜讘讛

Rav said: That is no proof, as we are dealing with a place where one does not write a marriage contract. In those places, there is a general stipulation of the Sages that a husband must pay his wife the sum of the marriage contract even if no document was written. Therefore, there is no concern lest she produce the marriage contract at a later stage. And Shmuel said that the mishna is referring even to a place where one writes a marriage contract, which she claims to have lost.

讜诇砖诪讜讗诇 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专 讗诪专 专讘 注谞谉 诇讚讬讚讬 诪讬驻专砖讗 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讜讗诪专 讻转讘转讬 注诇讬讜 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讻讜转讘讬谉 讜讗诪专讛 诇讗 讻转讘 诇讬 注诇讬讛 诇讛讘讬讗 专讗讬讛

The Gemara asks: And according to Shmuel, does one in fact write a receipt? Rav Anan said: It was explained to me personally by the Sage Shmuel himself: The mishna is addressing two different cases. In a place where one does not write a marriage contract and the husband said: I wrote a marriage contract, it is incumbent upon him to bring proof that he wrote one. In that case, she cannot collect payment without producing the document. In a place where one writes a marriage contract and she said: He did not write one for me, she must bring proof that he did not write a marriage contract. Only then can she collect payment without one.

讜讗祝 专讘 讛讚专 讘讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讘讬谉 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讻讜转讘讬谉 讘讬谉 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讙讟 讙讜讘讛 注讬拽专 讻转讜讘讛 讙讜讘讛 转讜住驻转 讜讻诇 讛专讜爪讛 诇讛砖讬讘 讬讘讗 讜讬砖讬讘

And even Rav retracted his interpretation of the mishna, as Rav said the following ruling: Both in a place where one writes a marriage contract and in a place where one does not write a marriage contract, if she produces only a bill of divorce, she collects the main sum of the marriage contract. The Sages established minimum sums to serve as the principal payment of the marriage contract: Two hundred dinars for a virgin and one hundred for a non-virgin. If she produces a marriage contract that specifies a larger sum, she collects only the additional sum and not the main sum, as there is a concern that she collected the main sum previously by producing the bill of divorce. And whoever wishes to challenge this solution, let him come and challenge it. There is no longer any possibility of deceit, as she will gain nothing by producing the marriage contract in a second court after having collected her marriage contract by producing her bill of divorce in a first court.

转谞谉 讻转讜讘讛 讜讗讬谉 注诪讛 讙讟 讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 讗讘讚 讙讬讟讬 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗讘讚 砖讜讘专讬 讜讻谉 讘注诇 讞讜讘 砖讛讜爪讬讗 砖讟专 讞讜讘 讜讗讬谉 注诪讜 驻专讜讝讘讜诇 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诇讗 讬驻专注讜

The Gemara objects: We learned in the mishna: If she produced a marriage contract, and it was unaccompanied by a bill of divorce, and she says: My bill of divorce was lost, and he says: Just as your bill of divorce was lost, so too my receipt for the payment of your marriage contract was lost; and likewise, in a case of a creditor who produced a promissory note after the Sabbatical Year, unaccompanied by a prosbol, and demanded payment of the debt, these debts may not be collected.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 诪讜拽讬 诇讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讜讗诪专 讻转讘转讬 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讬讬转讬 专讗讬讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 诪讬讬转讬 专讗讬讛 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 驻专注讬讛

The Gemara presents the question: Granted, according to Shmuel, this is reasonable. He establishes the mishna as referring to a place where the common practice is that one does not write a marriage contract, and the husband previously had said: I wrote one, and therefore did not want to pay the marriage contract when she produced the bill of divorce, as he was concerned that she would later produce the marriage contract and demand payment again. As in that case we say to him, according to Shmuel: Bring proof that you wrote a marriage contract, and if he does not bring proof, we say to him: Go and pay her based on the bill of divorce. Now, when she produces her marriage contract and the husband claims that he paid her by means of the bill of divorce and has lost the receipt, the mishna rules that this debt cannot be collected.

讗诇讗 诇专讘 谞讛讬 讚注讬拽专 诇讗 讙讘讬讗 转讜住驻转 诪讬讛讗 转讬讙讘讬

The Gemara completes the question: However, according to Rav, why does the mishna state that the debt cannot be collected? Although she cannot now collect the main sum of her marriage contract, because he can claim that she already received this sum in a different court by means of her bill of divorce, she should be able to collect the additional sum by virtue of the marriage contract, as she could not have received that by producing the bill of divorce alone.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻砖讗讬谉 砖诐 注讚讬 讙讬专讜砖讬谉 诪讬讙讜 讚讬讻讜诇 诇诪讬诪专 诇讗 讙讬专砖转讬讛

Rav Yosef said: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where there are no witnesses to the divorce present there. Since the husband can say: I did not divorce her and she is entitled to nothing,

讬讻讜诇 诇诪讬诪专 讙讬专砖转讬讛 讜谞转转讬 诇讛 讻转讜讘转讛

he can also say: I divorced her and gave her the payment of her marriage contract.

讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪谉 讛住讻谞讛 讜讗讬诇讱 讗砖讛 讙讜讘讛 讻转讜讘转讛 砖诇讗 讘讙讟 讜讘注诇 讞讜讘 砖诇讗 讘驻专讜讝讘讜诇 讘讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬 讙讬专讜砖讬谉 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗讬 诇讬讻讗 注讚讬 讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讘诪讗讬 讙讘讬讗

The Gemara asks: From the fact that the last clause of the mishna teaches that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: From the time of danger and onward, a woman collects payment of her marriage contract without a bill of divorce, and a creditor collects payment without a prosbol, apparently we are dealing with a case when there are witnesses to the divorce. As, if there are no witnesses to the divorce, with what proof does she collect the marriage contract? The mishna must be referring to a case where there are witnesses present, and therefore the husband cannot claim that he never divorced her.

讗诇讗 讻讜诇讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讬讗 讜讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诇讗 讬驻专注讜 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讻砖讗讬谉 砖诐 注讚讬 讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讗讘诇 讬砖 砖诐 注讚讬 讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讙讘讬讗 转讜住驻转 讜注讬拽专 讗讬 诪驻拽讗 讙讬讟讗 讙讘讬讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 诪驻拽讗 讙讬讟讗 诇讗 讙讘讬讗

Rather, the Gemara rejects the previous explanation and explains: The entire mishna is according to the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and the mishna is incomplete and is this is what it is teaching: These debts may not be collected. In what case is this statement said? It is when there are no witnesses to the divorce present there. However, if there are witnesses to the divorce present there, she collects the additional sum listed in the document and not the main sum, lest she later produce the bill of divorce and demand payment a second time. And as for the main sum of the marriage contract, if she produces a bill of divorce, she collects it. But if she does not produce a bill of divorce, she does not collect it.

讜诪谉 讛住讻谞讛 讜讗讬诇讱 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 诪驻拽讗 讙讬讟讗 讙讘讬讗 砖专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪住讻谞讛 讜讗讬诇讱 讗砖讛 讙讜讘讛 讻转讜讘转讛 砖诇讗 讘讙讟 讜讘注诇 讞讜讘 砖诇讗 讘驻专讜讝讘讜诇

The Gemara continues the modified version of the mishna: And from the time of danger and onward, even if she does not produce a bill of divorce, she collects the main sum of her marriage contract as well, as Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: From the time of danger and onward a woman collects payment of her marriage contract without a bill of divorce, and a creditor collects payment without a prosbol.

讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜专讘 讗住讬 诇专讘 诇讚讬讚讱 讚讗诪专转 讙讟 讙讜讘讛 注讬拽专 讗诇诪谞讛 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 讘诪讗讬 讙讘讬讗 讘注讚讬 诪讬转讛 讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讙讬专砖讛 讜诪驻拽讗 诇讙讬讟讗 讜讙讘讬讗 讘讬讛 讘讬讜砖讘转 转讞转 讘注诇讛

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: According to your opinion, that you said that a woman who produces a bill of divorce collects the main sum, then in the case of a widow from marriage, with what proof does she collect the main sum of her marriage contract, as she has no bill of divorce? She can claim the main sum with witnesses to his death. But shouldn鈥檛 we be concerned that perhaps he divorced her before he passed away, and after receiving her marriage contract by means of the witnesses to his death, she will produce the bill of divorce he gave her and collect payment with it a second time? Rav answered: She can collect payment with witnesses to her husband鈥檚 death only when she was living under the jurisdiction of her husband the entire time, and it is clear that he did not divorce her.

讜讚诇诪讗 住诪讜讱 诇诪讬转讛 讙讬专砖讛 讗讬讛讜 讛讜讗 讚讗驻住讬讚 讗谞驻砖讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But perhaps he divorced her near his death, in which case it is not known that she was divorced. She could then demand payment for her marriage contract twice. The Gemara answers: In that case, it is he who caused his own loss, by failing to inform others of the divorce, and it is not necessary to be concerned that such a situation could occur.

讗诇诪谞讛 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讘诪讗讬 讙讘讬讗 讘注讚讬 诪讬转讛 讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 讙讬专砖讛 讜诪驻拽讗 讙讬讟讗 讜讙讘讬讗

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi asked Rav another question: With what proof can a widow from betrothal collect her marriage contract? She can collect the payment with witnesses to his death. But once again, shouldn鈥檛 we be concerned that perhaps he divorced her beforehand, and after receiving her marriage contract based on the evidence of the witnesses, she will produce the bill of divorce he gave her and collect a second time with it? Since a betrothed woman does not live with her husband, there would be no indication that he had divorced her.

讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讻转讘讬谞谉 砖讜讘专 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 注讚讬 诪讬转讛 讙讜驻讬讬讛讜 谞讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 诪驻拽讗 注讚讬 诪讬转讛 讘讛讗讬 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讜讙讘讬讗 讜讛讚专 诪驻拽讗 讘讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜讙讘讬讗 讗诇讗 讜讚讗讬 讘诪拽讜诐 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讻转讘讬谞谉 砖讜讘专

Rather, it must be that wherever it is not possible otherwise to know if a woman already received her marriage contract, one writes a receipt, as if you do not say so with regard to the witnesses to his death themselves, we should be concerned that perhaps she will bring out witnesses to his death in this court and collect payment for her marriage contract, and again bring out witnesses in a different court and collect payment for her marriage contract a second time. This could continue many times. Rather, it must certainly be the case that wherever it is not possible otherwise to know if a woman already received her marriage contract, one writes a receipt.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 拽砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗诇诪谞讛 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 诪谞诇谉 讚讗讬转 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讛讗 谞转讗专诪诇讛 讗讜 谞转讙专砖讛 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讘讬谉 诪谉 讛谞砖讜讗讬谉 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛讻诇 讚诇诪讗 讚讻转讘 诇讛

Mar the Elder, son of Rav 岣sda, said to Rav Ashi: From where do we know that a widow from betrothal has a marriage contract? Perhaps the Sages instituted the marriage contract only for married women. If we say that it is derived from this mishna (54b): If a woman is widowed or divorced, whether from betrothal or whether from marriage, she collects the entire amount of her marriage contract, including the additional sum, this mishna is not proof. Perhaps the mishna is referring to a case where he wrote a marriage contract for her on his own accord. That does not prove that there is an enactment of the Sages that a husband must write a marriage contract for his betrothed.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讬 讻转讘 诇讛 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖诇讗 讻转讘 诇讛 讗诇讗 注诇 诪谞转 砖讛讜讗 讻讜谞住讛

And if you would say in response that if that mishna is referring to a case where he wrote the marriage contract for her, what is the purpose of stating that she collects the entire sum, since it is clear that she receives the full amount, as she has the document in her possession; perhaps this is meant to exclude the statement of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who said that a betrothed woman who was divorced or widowed is not entitled to the additional sum written in the marriage contract, as the groom wrote this additional amount for her only in order to marry her.

讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚拽转谞讬 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛讻诇 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讚讻转讘 诇讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛讻诇 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讚诇讗 讻转讘 诇讛 诪讗讬 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛讻诇 诪谞讛 诪讗转讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讗讬转 诇讛

The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise, that it is referring to a case where he wrote the marriage contract for her, as it teaches: She collects the entire amount. Granted, if you say that he wrote a marriage contract for her, it is due to that reason that she collects the entire amount, both the main sum and additional sum written in the marriage contract. But if you say that he did not write a marriage contract for her, and she collects a payment only because of the rabbinic ordinance, what is the meaning of: She collects the entire sum? She has only one hundred dinars or two hundred dinars, as enacted by the Sages, and no more. The phrase: Entire sum, is inappropriate according to this opinion.

讜讗诇讗 诪讚转谞讬 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗砖转讜 讗专讜住讛 诇讗 讗讜谞谉 讜诇讗 诪讬讟诪讗 诇讛 讜讻谉 讛讬讗 诇讗 讗讜谞谞转 讜诇讗 诪讬讟诪讗讛 诇讜 诪转讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讜专砖讛 诪转 讛讜讗 讙讜讘讛 讻转讜讘转讛

But rather, the proof that a widow from betrothal receives a marriage contract is from that which was taught by Rav 岣yya bar Avin: Upon the death of one鈥檚 betrothed wife, he does not receive the status of an acute mourner, one whose close relative has died but has not yet been buried, nor become impure if he is a priest. And likewise, she neither receives the status of an acute mourner nor becomes impure for him. If she dies, he does not inherit from her. If he dies, she collects payment of her marriage contract. This shows that a widow from betrothal receives a marriage contract.

讚诇诪讗 讚讻转讘 诇讛 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讬 讻转讘 诇讛 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪转讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讜专砖讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara refutes this proof in the same manner as before: Perhaps this is referring to a case where he wrote a marriage contract for her on his own accord. And if you would say in response that if that mishna is referring to a case where he wrote the marriage contract for her, what is the purpose of stating that she collects the payment, as this is obvious and teaches nothing new; perhaps it was necessary for him to mention that despite the fact that the man wrote a marriage contract for her, if she dies, he does not inherit from her. The discussion concludes without a source for the halakha that a widow from betrothal receives a marriage contract.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇专讘 讚讗诪专 讙讟 讙讜讘讛 注讬拽专 诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 诪驻拽讗 讙讬讟讗 讘讛讗讬 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讜讙讘讬讗 讜讛讚专讗 诪驻拽讗 讘讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜讙讘讬讗 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚拽专注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗诪专讛 讘注讬谞讗 诇讗谞住讜讘讬 讘讬讛

Rav Na岣an said to Rav Huna: According to Rav, who said that if she produces a bill of divorce she can collect the main sum of her marriage contract, shouldn鈥檛 there be a concern lest she produce the bill of divorce in this court and collect with it, and again produce it in a different court and collect with it? And should you say that we tear it, as the court does to other documents that have been paid, she will not let us do so, for she will say: I do not want you to tear the bill of divorce because I need it, so that when I want to marry again I can prove with it that I am divorced.

讚拽专注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜讻转讘讬谞谉 讗讙讘讬讛 讙讬讟讗 讚谞谉 拽专注谞讜讛讬 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讙讬讟讗 驻住讜诇 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 转讬讛讚专 讜转讬讙讘讬 讘讬讛 讝诪谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗

Rav Huna responded: The solution is that we tear it and write the following on its back: We tore this bill of divorce, not because it is an invalid bill of divorce, but in order that she not return and collect with it another time.

诪转谞讬壮 砖谞讬 讙讬讟讬谉 讜砖转讬 讻转讜讘讜转 讙讜讘讛 砖转讬 讻转讜讘讜转

MISHNA: If a woman had two bills of divorce and two marriage contracts as a result of her divorce and remarriage to the same man, the fact that she is in possession of these documents proves that she was never paid for her first marriage contract, and she collects two marriage contracts.

砖转讬 讻转讜讘讜转 讜讙讟 讗讞讚 讗讜 讻转讜讘讛 讜砖谞讬 讙讟讬谉 讗讜 讻转讜讘讛 讜讙讟 讜诪讬转讛 讗讬谞讛 讙讜讘讛 讗诇讗 讻转讜讘讛 讗讞转 砖讛诪讙专砖 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜讛讞讝讬专讛 注诇 诪谞转 讻转讜讘讛 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 诪讞讝讬专讛

If she was in possession of two marriage contracts and only one bill of divorce; or if she had one marriage contract and two bills of divorce; or if she had a marriage contract, a bill of divorce, and witnesses to her husband鈥檚 death after their remarriage, she collects payment of only one marriage contract. This is because there is a presumption that one who divorces his wife and remarries her, remarries her with the intention of using her first marriage contract, and she agrees that she collects payment of only the original document. This is the presumption, unless he wrote another marriage contract for her.

讙诪壮 讗讬 讘注讬讗 讘讛讗讬 讙讘讬讗 讗讬 讘注讬讗 讘讛讗讬 讙讘讬讗

GEMARA: The mishna states that if she had two marriage contracts and one bill of divorce, she can collect only one marriage contract. However, it does not specify which marriage contract she can claim. Does this mean that if she desires, she can collect payment of the marriage contract with this one, and if she desires, she can collect payment with that one? In that case, if she prefers she can use the document that promises the larger sum, and if she prefers to use the marriage contract with the earlier date in order to be able to collect property that her husband had sold to others between the dates on the two documents, she may collect with that one.

诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖谞讬 砖讟专讜转 讛讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讘讬讟诇 砖谞讬 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谉

The Gemara asks: If that is the case, let us say that it is a conclusive refutation of a statement that Rav Na岣an said that Shmuel said, as Rav Na岣an said that Shmuel said: If there are two documents that are issued one after the other, each recording the same transaction of a sale or a gift and they are separated by a few days, it is assumed that the second document cancels the first one. Why not say in this case as well that the second marriage contract voids the first one?

诇讗讜 讗转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗讬 讗讜住讬祝 讘讬讛 讚讬拽诇讗 诇转讜住驻转 讻转讘讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘讚讗讜住讬祝 诇讛

The Gemara answers: Was it not stated with regard to the halakha Shmuel quoted in the name of Rav Na岣an that Rav Pappa said: And Rav Na岣an concedes that if he added to the transaction detailed in the second document a palm tree that was not mentioned in the first document, this shows that he did not intend to cancel the first document. Rather, he wrote the second document as an addition to the first document. Here too, the Gemara is dealing with a case when he added an additional sum for her in the second marriage contract. This proves that he wanted to add to the first marriage contract, and not to void it.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讜爪讬讗讛 讙讟 讜讻转讜讘讛 讜诪讬转讛

The Sages taught: If she produced a bill of divorce, a marriage contract, and witnesses to her husband鈥檚 death,

Scroll To Top