Previous daf

1)

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah states that a woman may claim her Kesuvah with her Get alone. We initially think that she claims that she lost her Kesuvah.

(b) Her husband is not believed to counter that he already paid and that she returned the Kesuvah and he tore it up - because Kesuvah is a Ma'aseh Beis-Din, and one is not believed to deny Ma'aseh Beis-Din without a good proof.

(c) Beis-Din prevent her from claiming a second time with her Get - by making a tear in the Get.

(a) If she claims her Kesuvah with her Sh'tar Kesuvah (claiming that she lost her Get) and her husband counters that he already paid, but that he lost his receipt, Beis-Din do not uphold her claim. A 'Ba'al-Chov' has a parallel Din to this one - if a creditor claims his debt after the Sh'mitah-year on the basis of a P'ruzbul which he claims, he lost.

(b) A P'ruzbul is - a document that every creditor writes before the termination of the Sh'mitah-year handing over all one's debts to the Beis-Din, effectively giving them the ownership of the debt. Consequently, when he eventually claims his debt, he is legally doing so as a Sh'liach Beis-Din claiming money that belongs to the Beis-Din, and that Beis-Din then permit him to keep.

(c) The woman loses her claim - because we are afraid that she already claimed her Kesuvah with her Get, which they tore and which she is now hiding, whilst she claims again with her Kesuvah; and the creditor loses his claims because we are afraid that he did not have a P'ruzbul and that his loan was therefore canceled at the termination of Sh'mitah.

(a) From the time of the Sakanah and onwards - Raban Shimon ben Gamliel permitted a woman to claim her Kesuvah without her Get.

(b) 'The time of Sakanah' - refers to the time when the Romans forbade the Jews to fulfill the Mitzvos. Consequently, the women would destroy her Get as soon as she received it, because she was afraid to be caught with it in her possession.

(c) We try to prove from the Reisha of our Mishnah that one writes a receipt - because otherwise how can we permit a woman to claim her Kesuvah with her Get only? Why are we not afraid that, after her husband's death, and, pretending not to have been divorced, she will produce her Sh'tar Kesuvah, and claim her Kesuvah again with it.

(d) Rav initially dispenses with this problem - by establishing the Mishnah in a place where it is customary not to write a Kesuvah.

(a) According to Shmuel, the Tana is speaking in a place where it is customary to write a Sh'tar Kesuvah. We do not want to establish that our Tana holds 'Kosvin Shover' - because we rule in Bava Basra like those who hold 'Ein Kosvin Shover' (see Tosfos DH 'Sh'ma Minah').

(b) Those who hold 'Ein Kosvin Shover' - are afraid that the mice will chew the document, leaving the debtor without evidence that he has paid.

(a) To answer why we are not afraid that the woman will later produce her Kesuvah against the heirs and claim again, Shmuel explained our Mishnah to Rav Anan like this - if the Tana speaks in a place where it is customary not to write a Sh'tar Kesuvah (like Rav currently contends), then the husband is not believed to say that he wrote one; whereas if he speaks in a place where the custom it *to write one*, then it also speaks when the woman proved that her husband *did not*. Either way, no receipt is necessary.

(b) Rav finally retracts and agrees with Shmuel that our Mishnah can speak either way. In his opinion - if she claims her Kesuvah with her Get, then she receives the basic Kesuvah (Manah or Masayim); whereas if she claims with her Sh'tar Kesuvah, then she receives the Tosefes.

(c) When Rav concluded 'Whoever wants to come and ask, let him do so'! - he meant to say that, according to this compromise, there is nothing to be afraid of.

(a) The problem with Rav from the Seifa of our Mishnah, where she produces a Kesuvah, claiming that she lost her Get ... , yet the Tana prohibits her from claiming is - why should she not be entitled to now claim *the Tosefes* with her Kesuvah?

(b) This is not a problem with Shmuel - because the Tana would have esrtablished the case in a place where the custom was not to write a Kesuvah. Consequently, he would now believed when he claims that she was paid initially with her Get (because he was not able to prove that he had written her a Kesuvah), and that they had written him a receipt, which he had now lost.

(c) To answer the Kashya against Rav, Rav Yosef establishes our Mishnah when there are no witnesses that the woman is divorced - in which case, the husband is believed completely with a 'Migu', because he could have countered that his wife was not divorced.

7)

(a) We just established our Mishnah according to Rav, when there are no witnesses that she is divorced. In that case - how does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel in the Seifa, permit a woman to claim without a Get from the time of Sakanah and onwards? If she has neither a Get nor witnesses that she is divorced, with what will she claim her Kesuvah (how will we know that she is not still married)?

(b) So we establish the entire Mishnah like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel. After stating that the woman cannot claim with her Kesuvah alone, the Tana continues - 'Bameh Devarim Amurim, ke'she'Ein Sham Eidei Geirushin, Aval Yesh ... Gavya Tosefes; ve'Ikar, I Mafka Gita, Gavya ... u'Min ha'Sakanah va'Eilech, Af-al-Gav de'Lo Mafka Gita ... '.

(c) When Rav Kahana and Rav Asi asked Rav that, seeing as a divorcee claims her basic Kesuvah with her Get, how does a widow claim her's -Rav replied 'With the witnesses of her husband's death.

(d) We are not then afraid that ...

1. ... really she was divorced, and that she will later produce her Get, and claim her Kesuvah again in a different Beis-Din - because (we currently contend) a widow can only claim her Get if she was living with her husband at the time of his death.
2. ... her husband divorced her just before he died - because if he did, then he has only himself to blame (so to speak) for causing his heirs a loss.

(a) All of the above is fine when we are talking about a widow from *the marriage*, who was living with her husband. But the only way to get round the same fear in the case of a widow from *the betrothal*, where they were not living together and where she may have been divorced, is - by writing a receipt, which everyone agrees we do, when there is no other option.

(b) We prove this from the case of the witnesses who testify that her husband died - because, if we did not write a receipt, what is to stop her from producing them a second time in another Beis-Din and claiming her Kesuvah again?

(c) This also covers - the case of a widow from the marriage, who is permitted to claim her Kesuvah, even if her husband died whilst he was overseas, provided she writes the heirs a receipt.

(a) Mar Keshisha Brei de'Rav Chisda asked Rav Ashi from where we know that a widow from the Eirusin receives a Kesuvah. There is no proof from the Mishnah in 'Af-al-Pi', which specifically states that a widow or a divorcee from the betrothal as well as from the marriage, may claim her entire Kesuvah - because that Mishnah speaks when the husband specifically wrote her one.

(b) If the Mishnah is speaking specifically when he wrote her a Kesuvah - the Chidush will be that she receives even the Tosefes, even though they did not get married, to preclude from the opinion of Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, who holds that the woman only receives the Tosefes if she eventually marries (since that is the whole point of the betrothal).

(c) The proof from the actual statement that the Tana is speaking in such a case - is from the word 'Govah es *ha'Kol" (incorporating the Tosefes). Now if he had not written her a Kesuvah, how would there be any Tosefes?

(a) There no proof for our She'eilah, from the Beraisa, which states 'Meisah, Einah Yorshah, Meis Hu, Govah K'suvasah', for the same reason as in the previous question (because the Tana speaks when he specifically wrote her a Kesuvah).

(b) If the Mishnah is speaking when he wrote her a Kesuvah - the Chidush will be that, even though he feels sufficiently close to her to write her a Kesuvah, nevertheless, he will not inherit her should she die whilst they are betrothed?

(c) We know that a man does not inherit his Arusah - because the Pasuk from which we learn that a husband inherits his wife is "Ki-im li'She'eiro ... " in Emor, and "She'eiro" by definition means 'wife'.

(a) Rav Nachman asked Rav Huna why, according to Rav (who maintains that with the Get, the woman may claim the basic Kesuvah), we are not afraid that she will claim her Kesuvah in one Beis-Din, and then claim it again in another Beis-Din. He could not answer that one tears-up her Get after the first claim - because she needs the Get in order to remarry.

(b) Rav Huna replied - that Beis-Din make a tear in the Get, and write on it that the tear is not an indication that the Get is Pasul, but that her Kesuvah has already been paid.

(a) If a woman has two Gitin and two Kesuvos, she may claim with each of the Kesuvos - provided the first Kesuvah is dated before the first Get, and the second one, before the second Get.

(b) If she has ...

1. ... two Kesuvos and one Get or ...
2. ... one Kesuvah and two Gitin - she may claim one Kesuvah.
3. ... one Kesuvah, a Get and Eidei Misah - she may claim one Kesuvah.

(c) The reason for these two latter Halachos is - because, when a man remarries a woman, he does so on the basis of the original Kesuvah (unless he specifically writes her a second Kesuvah - as we saw in the Reisha of the Mishnah).

(d) She will be able to claim two Kesuvos (in the later case) - if the Kesuvah is dated after the Get, in which case, the Kesuvah pertains to her remarriage, and with the Get, she will be able to claim her Kesuvah from the first marriage.

(a) We infer from the second case in our Mishnah , which permits the woman to claim one Kesuvah from either of the two documents (and does not restrict her claim to the latter one) - that she may claim with whichever Kesuvah she chooses.

(b) Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel rules that if someone produces two documents on the same debt, he may only claim with the latter one - meaning that she cannot claim from anyone who purchased fields from her husband before the date on the second Kesuvah.

(c) We reconcile this with the inference that we just made from our Mishnah with a statement by Rav Papa qualifying Rav Nachman - who says that Rav Nachman concedes that, if the second document adds as little as one date-palm to the first one, both documents are valid, and the recipient (in our case, the woman) has a choice to claim with whichever one he wishes.