Ketubot 89aכתובות פ״ט א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Ketubot 89a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
89aפ״ט א

גובה כתובתה

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

כתובה ואין עמה גט היא אומרת אבד גיטי והוא אומר אבד שוברי וכן בעל חוב שהוציא שטר חוב ואין עמו פרוזבול הרי אלו לא יפרעו

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.

רשב"ג אומר מן הסכנה ואילך אשה גובה כתובתה שלא בגט ובעל חוב גובה שלא בפרוזבול:

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.

גמ׳ ש"מ כותבין שובר דאי אין כותבין שובר ליחוש דלמא מפקא לה לכתובתה וגביא בה

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.

אמר רב במקום שאין כותבין כתובה עסקי' ושמואל אמר אף במקום שכותבין כתובה

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.

ולשמואל כותבין שובר אמר רב ענן לדידי מיפרשא לי מיניה דמר שמואל במקום שאין כותבין ואמר כתבתי עליו להביא ראיה במקום שכותבין ואמרה לא כתב לי עליה להביא ראיה

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.

ואף רב הדר ביה דאמר רב בין במקום שכותבין בין במקום שאין כותבין גט גובה עיקר כתובה גובה תוספת וכל הרוצה להשיב יבא וישיב

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.

תנן כתובה ואין עמה גט היא אומרת אבד גיטי והוא אומר אבד שוברי וכן בע"ח שהוציא שטר חוב ואין עמו פרוזבול הרי אלו לא יפרעו

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.

בשלמא לשמואל מוקי לה במקום שאין כותבין ואמר כתבתי דאמרי' ליה אייתי ראיה ואי לא מייתי ראיה אמרינן ליה זיל פרעיה

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.

אלא לרב נהי דעיקר לא גביא תוספת מיהא תיגבי

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.

אמר רב יוסף הכא במאי עסקינן כשאין שם עדי גירושין מיגו דיכול למימר לא גירשתיה

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,