Ketubot 89a — the Talmud in English

Nevertheless —

she collects her ketubba ,

and the husband cannot claim: “I paid you, and you returned to me the document of your ketubba, and I tore it up,” since the debt of the ketubba is an “act of the court” , and anyone who makes a claim after an act of the court and says, “I paid,” is not believed, and the claimant is considered as one who is holding a document in his hand.

But if she produced as evidence the

ketubba, and there is no get with it,

and

she says —

“My husband divorced me, and

my get was lost,

and he has still not paid me my ketubba.”

And he says —

“Indeed, I divorced her, but I paid her ketubba, and they tore up the get for her, and gave me a receipt, and

my receipt was lost,

and likewise, a creditor who produced a loan document

on which the Sabbatical year had passed,

and he does not have with it

a document of

a prozbul,

which he had delivered before the Sabbatical year so that his debts would not be canceled , and he claims: “I had a prozbul, but it was lost” — \- these shall not collect,

since we fear that her ketubba may have already been paid; and in the case of a creditor, that perhaps he did not have a prozbul.

because there is concern that the woman’s ketubah may already have been paid, and, in the case of the creditor, that he may not have had a prozbul.

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: From the time of the danger onward ,

that is, from the time when the gentiles issued a decree against the mitzvot, and they were afraid to safeguard their documents of divorce and their prozbul documents —

a woman collects her ketubba without a get, and a creditor collects without a prozbul .

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that if she produced a get and there is no ketubba with it, she collects her ketubba, and we do not fear that she will produce it a second time and collect it.

And the Gemara carefully infers:

Infer from it: a receipt is written.

That is: if a person’s document was lost, and the borrower admits that he owes him, but does not wish to pay him until he returns the document to him, so that he will not be able to come back and claim from him a second time, we say to him: Pay him. And he will write you a receipt that you paid him.

For if a receipt is not written,

and the borrower is not required to pay until the lender returns the document to him,

let us fear lest she produce [

she take out]

her ketubba

after her husband’s death,

and collect with it

as a widow, and say: “He never divorced me.”

And if so, this is difficult: is it not established for us in tractate Bava Batra (171b) according to the one who says, “A receipt is not written” , and the borrower is not required to pay until the lender returns his document to him; and if so, why here is the husband required to pay her ? And we answer:

Rav said,

our Mishna

is dealing with a place where they do not write a ketubba,

and in such a case there is no concern that she will produce her ketubba a second time. Indeed, in a place where they write a ketubba, the husband is not required to pay her ketubba until she brings the document.

And Shmuel said: Even in a place where they write a ketubba,

the husband is required to pay her even if she does not have the ketubba in her possession. And it entered your mind that a receipt is written for him upon payment, so that she will not produce the ketubba against him and collect it a second time.

And we challenge this:

And

if

according to

the view of

Shmuel, is a receipt written?!

And we answer:

Rav Anan said: For me, it was explained to me by Master Shmuel himself [

I received from Shmuel the explanation of his words]: In fact, Shmuel too holds that a receipt is not written, and

in a place where they do not write

a ketubba,

and the husband said —

the husband —

“I wrote

one for her, and I do not wish to pay until she returns the ketubba to me,”

he must bring proof

that he wrote one for her; and if he does not bring proof, he pays her ketubba.

And

in a place where they write

a ketubba,

and she said

the woman —

“He did not write one for me,

and I have no ketubba in my possession to return to the husband,”

she must bring proof

that he did not write one for her; and if she does not bring proof, he does not pay her .

And our Mishna, which said, “She collects her ketubba,” applies both in a place where they do not write a ketubba and he said, “I wrote one,” in which case he is not believed, and in a place where they write a ketubba and the woman brought proof that he did not write one for her.

And even Rav,

who established our Mishna as referring to a place where they do not write a ketubba,

retracted his position [

he retracted his words], and established the Mishna according to another reason:

For Rav said: Whether in a place where they write

a ketubba,

or in a place where they do not write

a ketubba — if she produced a

get

without a ketubba,

she collects

only the

principal

of her ketubba, namely, the one hundred or the two hundred zuz.

And if she produced a

ketubba

without a get,

she collects

only the

additional sum

of the ketubba, which the husband added to her voluntarily. [And even in a place where they do not write a ketubba, this applies only to the principal of the ketubba; but for the additional sum he always writes her a ketubba.]

And whoever wishes to respond may come and respond.

That is: now there is no concern about anything, since she collects only by means of the document in her possession.

And we challenge Rav’s words: did we not

learn

in our Mishna:

“A ketubba with no get accompanying it: she says, ‘My get was lost,’ and he says, ‘My receipt was lost’; and likewise, a creditor who produced a loan document and there is no prozbul with it — these shall not collect.”

And we consider the matter:

Granted, according to Shmuel,

who said that both the principal and the additional sum are collected by means of the get, it is understandable why they do not collect,

since he

establishes it [

establishes the Mishna]

in a place where they do not write

a ketubba,

and the husband said

the husband

“I wrote

her a ketubba, and I do not pay until she returns it to me”,

we say to him —

“Bring proof

that you wrote her a ketubba,”

and if he does not bring proof, we say to him —

“Go, pay it,”

and therefore, when she produced a get against him without a ketubba, and he said, “I paid it on the basis of the get,” he is believed, and he does not pay a second time.

But according to Rav,

why, when she produced a ketubba without a get, does she collect nothing?

Granted that she does not collect the principal,

because of the concern that she may have already collected it on the basis of the get; nevertheless,

the additional sum

of the ketubba

should she at least collect?

Surely she certainly did not collect it on the basis of the get, since according to Rav, “a get collects” only the principal.

And we answer:

Rav Yosef said: Here, with what are we dealing? With a case in which there are no witnesses to the divorce.

And therefore the husband is believed when he says, “I paid,” by virtue of

the migo that he could have said, “I did not divorce her,”