Ketubot 89b — the Talmud in English

He could say -

“I divorced her, and I gave her her ketubah.”

And we ask: How is it possible to establish the Mishna when there are no witnesses to the divorce,

for since it teaches

in the

latter clause

of the Mishna -

“Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: From the time of danger onward, a woman collects her ketubah without a get, and a creditor without a prozbul,”

and this law, necessarily,

deals with a case in which there are witnesses to the divorce, for if there are no witnesses to the divorce, through what does she collect?!

For she has neither a get nor witnesses, and from where do we know that she was divorced? Rather, certainly, it is speaking of a case in which there are witnesses to the divorce, and if so, the first clause, too, is speaking of a case in which there are witnesses to the divorce.

And we answer:

Rather, the entire

Mishna

is Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel’s, and it is lacking, and this is what it teaches -

“These do not collect. In what case is this said? When there are no witnesses to the divorce. But when there are witnesses to the divorce, she collects the additional amount. And

as for the

principal -

if she produces a get, she collects; and if she does not produce a get, she does not collect. And from the time of danger onward, even though she does not produce a get, she collects.

Because

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: From the time of danger onward, a woman collects her ketubah without a get, and a creditor without a prozbul.”

And if so, the first clause of the Mishna deals with a case in which there are no witnesses to the divorce, and this is not difficult for Rav’s words.

Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to Rav: According to you, who said

that if she produced a

get

without a ketubah,

she collects only

only the

principal; as for a widow from marriage, through what does she collect

the principal? Behold, she does not have a get in her possession ?

Rav said to them: She will collect

through witnesses to the death.

And we ask,

and let us be concerned lest he divorced her, and she produces the get and collects through it

the principal during his lifetime, and after his death she will say to the heirs, “Your father never divorced me, and give me the principal of my ketubah through witnesses to the death, as is the law of a widow

”? And we answer: Indeed, a widow collects the principal of her ketubah only when they recognized

that

she was

residing under her husband,

and then we are not concerned lest he divorced her.

And we ask:

But perhaps he divorced her close to the time of death,

and there is no proof of this from the fact that she resided with him throughout his life?

And we answer: There,

he himself caused his own loss,

for he should have established witnesses concerning the divorce.

And we ask: Still,

through what does a widow from betrothal collect?

For she never resided with him at all?

And we answer:

Through witnesses to the death.

And we ask:

And let us be concerned lest he divorced her, and she produces the get and collects

during his lifetime, and after his death claims that he never divorced her and again demands her ketubah as the law of a widow?

And we answer:

Rather,

certainly,

in a place where it is impossible,

such as when one divorces his betrothed and pays her ketubah,

we write a receipt

for the payment, so that she will not come to collect the ketubah a second time after his death.

And proof of this:

for if you do not say so,

with

witnesses to the death

themselves, let us be concerned lest she produce the witnesses to the death in this court and collect, and then produce

those same witnesses

in another court and collect

a second time?!

Rather, certainly, in a place where it is impossible, we write a receipt.

Mar Kashisha, son of Rav Hisda, said to Rav Ashi: From where do we know that a widow from betrothal has a ketubah

by stipulation of the court, even if he did not write it for her?

If you say it is from this Mishna that we learned above (54b)

that we learned earlier (54b

“If she was widowed or divorced, whether from betrothal or from marriage, she collects everything,”

and it is explained that a betrothed woman has a ketubah,

there it is not proof,

perhaps

it is speaking

of a case in which he wrote it for her,

but if he did not write it for her, she does not have a ketubah by stipulation of the court, as a married woman does.

And if you would say: If

it is speaking there of a case in which he

wrote it for her, what is it coming to say?!

For is it not obvious that he is liable to her for what he wrote for her?

This is not difficult, since the Mishna comes

to exclude the

words of

Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, who says

there in the Mishna that a widow from betrothal does not have a ketubah, even if he wrote it for her, since

he wrote it for her only on the condition that he would bring her into marriage.

And therefore the Mishna innovated contrary to his words, that even a betrothed woman has a ketubah. But one can always say that this is specifically where he wrote it for her; and from where do we innovate a stipulation of the court for a betrothed woman?

It is also precise

that the Mishna there deals with a case in which he explicitly wrote it for her -

for it teaches

there

“she collects everything.” Granted, if you say that he wrote it for her, for this reason she collects everything,

that is, also the additional amount,

but if you say that he did not write it for her, what does “she collects everything” mean?

For is it not only

maneh

or

two hundred that she has?

But rather,

the source for the stipulation of the court regarding the ketubah of a betrothed woman is

from what Rav Hiyya bar Avin taught: “His betrothed wife

who died,

he does not observe aninut ,

and if he is a

kohein, he does not become impure for her .

And likewise she,

whose husband died,

does not observe aninut and does not become impure for him. If

his betrothed

dies, he does not inherit her. If he dies,

she collects her ketubah.”

Behold, it is explained that a betrothed woman has a ketubah.

And we ask: Still, there is no proof from here,

perhaps he wrote it for her,

and therefore she collects her ketubah?

And if you would say: If

the teaching of Rabbi Hiyya’s baraita is speaking only of a case in which he

wrote it for her, what is it coming to say?

It is obvious that he is liable to her?!

This is not difficult, since this law -

“If she dies, he does not inherit her” - was needed by it

to teach it to us, and incidentally, since it taught this to us, it wrote for us, “she collects her ketubah.”” But it is always speaking of a case in which he wrote it for her, and still it is difficult: From where do we know that when he did not write her a ketubah, she collects by stipulation of the court? And we conclude with the question.

Rav Nahman said to Rav Huna: According to Rav, who said -

“A get collects the principal,” let us be concerned lest she produce the get in this court and collect, and then produce it in another court and collect

a second time?

And if you would say that

after she collected with it once

we tear it

so that she will not collect with it a second time,

this cannot be said, since

she said -

“I want to marry with it,”

and if I tear the get, they will say that I am a married woman,

And we answer:

We tear it, and we write alongside it [על קרעי הגט] [on the fragments of the get]:

on the torn pieces of the get]:

“We tore this get, not because the get is invalid, but so that she should not return and collect with it another time” [גט זה, קרענוהו, לאו משום שהיה פסול, אלא כדי שלא תחזור ותגבה בו בפעם אחרת]. [This get, we tore it, not because it was invalid, but so that she should not return and collect with it another time]. ובשטר זה יכולה להנשאAnd with this document she can marry.

With this document she can marry.

Mishna:

A woman who had in her possession

two gittin and two ketubot

from the same man , and the date of the first ketubah preceded the date of the first get, and the date of the second ketubah preceded the date of the second get -

she collects two ketubot.

However, if she had in her possession

two ketubot and one get, or one ketubah

one,

and two gittin, or one ketubah

one,

and a get

one,

and

witnesses to

the death -

she collects only one ketubah,

even though we know that he married her a second time, since

one who divorces his wife and takes her back -

takes her back on the basis of the first ketubah,

until he writes her an additional ketubah explicitly.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that if she had in her possession two ketubot and one get, she collects one ketubah.

And it implies that

if she wishes, she collects with this one; if she wishes, she collects with the other one [אם תרצה תגבה בכתובה זו, ואם תרצה בכתובה האחרת]. [If she wishes, she collects with this ketubah, and if she wishes, with the other ketubah].

if she wishes, she collects with this ketuba, and if she wishes, she collects with the other ketuba].

And we ask:

Shall we say

that this Mishna

be a refutation of Rav Nahman, who said in the name of Shmuel. [תהא פירכא לדברי רב נחמן שאמר בשם שמואל]. [Let it be a refutation of Rav Nahman’s words, who said in the name of Shmuel].

Let it be a difficulty against the statement of Rav Nahman, who said in the name of Shmuel.]

For Rav Nahman said in the name of Shmuel: Two documents that emerge one after the other—the second invalidates the first.

But in the Mishna it is explained that the first ketubah was not invalidated, and if she wishes, she may return and collect with it?

And we answer:

Was it not stated concerning it?!

Was it not already said concerning Rav Nahman’s words:

Rav Pappa said, and Rav Nahman concedes that if he added in it

in the second document

a palm tree, he wrote it as an addition.

And the first document was not invalidated.

And if so,

here too

our Mishna is speaking

of a case in which he added to her

the husband, in the second ketubah, a matter concerning the first one, and therefore the first ketubah document was not invalidated, and she can collect with it if she wishes to do so.

The Sages taught: If she produced a get and a ketubah, and

brought with them witnesses to

the death,

and came to collect two ketubot, one for her first marriage with him, from which he divorced her, and the second for her second marriage with him, from which she was widowed.