Bava Metzia 17b (יז:) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said: One who raises a claim against an act of the court,

that is, an obligation established by the terms of the court, such as the payment of the ketuba, and the wife's and daughters' sustenance until they marry [or until 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 though he is holding a document in his hand

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

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

Did we not learn the following in tractate Ketubot:

The woman produced

the

get

by which she was divorced,

and the ketuba is not with it—

she collects her ketuba

on the basis of the get!

It is evident that although 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 considered as though he is holding a document in his hand!

He said to him:

Indeed, this 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, 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 raises a claim against an act of the court has said nothing,” you would not have understood this law on your own from the Mishna .

Abaye said: What is the pearl?

What proof does the Mishna provide 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 on the terms of the court, and she always collects her ketuba until the husband produces a receipt showing that he paid her.

For

then the

get

by which he divorced her

is

what proves that he owes her

her ketuba.

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

she collects;

and

if she does not—

she does not collect.

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

Abaye subsequently said: The matter I stated 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 has the ketuba—

she collects; if she does not—

she does not collect,

then

a widow whose betrothed died

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

on what basis does she collect?

It must be

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 can in fact claim that he paid her,

then what purpose did the Sages' enactment serve

when 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 whose betrothed died 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 terms of the court, namely two hundred zuz for a virgin and one hundred for a widow, and the additional sum that he added to her ketuba,

perhaps

this applies specifically

where he wrote it for her

explicitly!

And if you would say:

If so, since he explicitly obligated himself to her,

what is the point of stating it,

what is the novelty?

There is still a novelty in this, as the tanna

excluded the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who said

in that Mishna in tractate Ketubot that a widow whose betrothed died collects only the principal of the ketuba, but not the additional sum, because

he wrote it for her

the additional sum

only on the condition that he would marry her.

And since he ultimately did not marry her, she does not collect the additional sum—

it was necessary for him

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

The language is also precise,

as it is likewise precise from the wording of the Mishna that it is speaking of a case 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.

For she collects both the principal of the ketuba and the additional sum.