Bava Metzia 17b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: One who makes a claim concerning an act of the court,

that is, an obligation created by the stipulation of the court, such as the amount of the ketuba , and the sustenance of the wife and daughters until they marry [or the daughters reach maturity], and the obligated party claims that he paid his debt without witnesses —

has said nothing.

What is the reason?

Because

every act of the court —

is considered as one who holds a document in his hand

[as though the claimant had a document concerning the debt].

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said to Rabbi Yohanan: Is this not our Mishna?

Did we not thus learn in tractate Ketubot:

The woman produced

the

divorce document

by which she was divorced,

and it was not accompanied by a ketuba —

she collects her ketuba

on the basis of the divorce document!

It is proven that even though she does not have a document in her possession, the husband is not believed to say, “I paid.” And this is because every act of the court is as though he holds a document in his hand!

He said to him:

Indeed, it is our Mishna. But

if I had not lifted the potsherd for you, you would not have found the pearl beneath it

[if I had not lifted the potsherd for you, you would not have found the pearl that was hidden beneath it ]. That is to say, if I had not stated the principle that “one who makes a claim concerning an act of the court has said nothing,” you would not have understood this law by yourself from the Mishna .

Abaye said: What pearl is this?

What is the proof from the Mishna for our matter?

Perhaps we are dealing with a place where they do not write a ketuba

in that Mishna, in which case they rely upon the stipulation of the court, and she always collects her ketuba, until the husband produces a receipt that he paid her.

For

then the

divorce document

by which he divorced her —

that is

the proof that he is obligated to her

“ketuba.”

But in a place where they write a ketuba, if she holds a ketuba —

she collects,

and

if not —

she does not collect.

Either because they are concerned that perhaps she will later produce her ketuba and collect a second time on its basis, or because the husband can claim, “I paid it.”

Abaye later said: The matter that I said is not correct,

that in a place where they write a ketuba he can claim, “I paid it.”

For if it enters your mind

that

we are dealing with a place where they do not write a ketuba, but in a place where they write a ketuba, if she holds a ketuba —

she collects, and if not —

she does not collect,

then

a widow from betrothal

[whose betrothed died before they married], for whom they do not write a ketuba even in a place where they customarily write a ketuba —

on what basis does she collect?

She must collect

through witnesses to the husband’s death!

If so,

let

the heir

claim and say: “I paid it!”

And if you would say: It is indeed so,

that he really can claim that he paid it,

then what benefit did the Sages’ enactment provide

that they enacted a ketuba for a betrothed woman? Surely everyone will claim, “I paid it”!

Mar Keshisha, son of Rav Hisda, said to Rav Ashi: And from where do we know that a widow from betrothal who has a ketuba —

from where do we know this?

If you say [it is] from that which we learned: If she was widowed or divorced, whether from betrothal or from marriage —

she collects the entire amount,

both the ketuba established by the stipulation of the court, that is, two hundred for a virgin and one hundred for a widow, and the addition that he added to her ketuba,

perhaps

this is specifically

where he wrote it for her

explicitly!

And if you would say:

If so, since he explicitly obligated himself to her,

what is it teaching us,

what is the novelty in this?

There is still a novelty in this, that the tanna

excludes the position of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, who said

in that Mishna in tractate Ketubot that a widow from betrothal collects only the principal of the ketuba, but not the addition, because

he did not write for her

the addition

except on the condition that he would marry her.

And since in the end he did not marry her, she does not collect the addition —

it was necessary for him,

to teach us that this is not said, and that she collects the entire ketuba.

It is also precise,

this too is precise from the wording of the Mishna, that it is speaking where he wrote it for her.

For it teaches: “She collects the entire amount.”

Granted, if you say that he wrote it for her, this is why it teaches, “She collects the entire amount.”

That she collects both the principal of the ketuba and the addition.