Daf Yomi - Kesuvos 89 - Highlights

Mishna

The Mishna states: If she produced a get, but not the kesuvah, she collects her kesuvah (even though, normally, a creditor is not believed to say that the debt had not been paid if he cannot produce the document, a kesuvah is different, since it is regarded as an act of Beis Din, and the husband would not be believed that it was paid). If she produced a kesuvah, and not a get: She says, “My get was lost,” and he says, “My receipt was lost”; and similarly, if a creditor produced a loan document (after shemitah, when all debts are cancelled unless they wrote a pruzbul; a document which transfers all of one’s personal loans to the Beis Din, and their debts are not cancelled after shemitah) and not a pruzbul, then these shall not be paid. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: From the time of danger (when the idolaters decreed that mitzvos may not be performed) and onwards, a woman may collect her kesuvah without a get, and a creditor may collect without a pruzbul. (88b – 89a)

Writing Receipts

(The Mishna had stated: If she produced a get, but not the kesuvah, she collects her kesuvah.) The Gemora states: It may be inferred from our Mishna that in general, we write receipts for the debtor (in cases when the creditor was not able to produce the loan document; even though, there is now a burden on the debtor to safeguard the receipt); for if we would not rite a receipt, let us be concerned that she will produce her kesuvah (after the husband’s death) and demand payment for her kesuvah a second time? (We are not concerned that she will produce her get during her husband’s lifetime, for as soon as she collects her kesuvah, we tear up the get. We are also not concerned that she will demand payment for her kesuvah without producing the get, for the Mishna states that she will not be able to collect in such a case. The Gemora is concerned that she will wait for her husband to die, produce her kesuvah to the inheritors, denying that she was ever divorced and demand payment for her kesuvah; if the inheritors produce a receipt, she will not get away with it.)

Rav said: The Mishna is referring to a locality where they did not generally write a kesuvah; it is for this reason that we allow her to write a receipt for the husband (the halacha is that we do not force a debtor to write a receipt).

Shmuel said: The Mishna can be referring to either case: It may be referring to a case where they did not generally write a kesuvah, but the husband claimed that he wrote a kesuvah. He is required to prove that he did write a kesuvah (otherwise, he must pay the kesuvah and accept the receipt from her). It may also be referring to a case where they did not generally write a kesuvah, but the wife claimed that he did not write a kesuvah. She is required to prove that he did not write a kesuvah (and if she does provide proof, he must pay the kesuvah and accept the receipt from her).

The Gemora states: Rav retracted from his initial opinion. For Rav said: Whether it is in a locality where the custom was to write a kesuvah, or whether they were in a locality where the custom was not to write a kesuvah, the following is the halacha: If she produces her get, she collects the primary amount of her kesuvah (the one hundred or two hundred zuz). If she produces her kesuvah, she may only collect the additional amount that was written in the kesuvah. (Using this method, there will be no concern for fraud.)

The Gemora questions Rav from our Mishna: If she produced a kesuvah, and not a get: She says, “My get was lost,” and he says, “My receipt was lost”; and similarly, if a creditor produced a loan document (after shemitah, when all debts are cancelled unless they wrote a pruzbul; a document which transfers all of one’s personal loans to the Beis Din, and their debts are not cancelled after shemitah) and not a pruzbul, then these shall not be paid. Now, according to Shmuel, this statement is understandable since one might interpret it as applying to a locality where it was the custom not to write a kesuvah and the husband claimed, “I did write one.” In such a case, we would tell him to produce evidence that he wrote the kesuvah, and should he fail to do so, he will be told to go and pay up. According to Rav, however, the question arises, granted that she will not be able to collect her primary kesuvah, but let her at least collect the additional amount?

Rav Yosef answers: We are referring to a case where the woman did not produce witnesses that she was divorced. The husband is able to say that he divorced her and paid her kesuvah with a migu that he could have claimed that he did not even divorce her (therefore, she doesn’t collect anything at all).

The Gemora asks: (It is evident from the latter ruling of the Mishna that we are referring to a case where there are witnesses to the divorce.) The Mishna had stated: Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says: From the time of danger (when the idolaters decreed that mitzvos may not be performed) and onwards, a woman may collect her kesuvah without a get, and a creditor may collect without a pruzbul. If there are no witnesses, how will she be able to collect?

The Gemora answers: The entire Mishna reflects the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and it is as if there are some words missing in the Mishna. The following is what the Mishna meant to say: If she produced a kesuvah, and not a get: She says, “My get was lost,” and he says, “My receipt was lost”; and similarly, if a creditor produced a loan document and not a pruzbul, then these shall not be paid. When are these words applicable? It is when there are no witnesses to the divorce; however, if there are witnesses, she may collect the additional amount. And in respect to the primary amount of the kesuvah; if she produces her get, she collects it, but if not, she may not collect it. And from the time of danger and onwards, she may collect the primary amount even without producing the get, for Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: From the time of danger and onwards, a woman may collect her kesuvah without a get, and a creditor may collect without a pruzbul. (89a – 89b)
When there are no other Options

Rav Kahana and Rav Assi asked Rav: According to you, who maintains that if the woman produces her get, she would collect the primary amount for her kesuvah (even without producing her kesuvah), with what evidence, may a woman, widowed from nisuin, offer in order to collect her kesuvah? The answer is obvious: She brings witnesses that her husband died! However, the question may be raised, let us be concerned that she was previously divorced, and later, she will produce the get and collect the primary amount of her kesuvah with it (since Rav is of the opinion that we do not write a receipt for the inheritors)?

Rav answers: She may collect her kesuvah only if we know that she was living with her husband until he died (and there was no divorce).

They asked: But perhaps, he divorced her right before he died?

Rav replied: If that was the case, he has caused the loss upon himself.

They persisted: But how can a woman, widowed from erusin, collect her kesuvah? The answer is obvious: She brings witnesses that her husband died! However, the question may be raised, let us be concerned that she was previously divorced, and later, she will produce the get and collect the primary amount of her kesuvah with it (and we cannot answer that she was living with him up until his death because we are discussing a case of betrothal)?

Rav is compelled to answer that in a situation, where there are no other options, we do write a receipt. (89b)

Seeking a Source

Mar Keshisha the son of Rav Chisda asked Rav Ashi: How do we know that a woman, widowed from erusin has a right to collect her kesuvah (even without producing her kesuvah)?

Perhaps you will say that it is derived from the following Mishna (54b): A woman who was widowed or divorced, either after marriage or after betrothal, is entitled to collect everything (the basic obligations of the kesuvah, plus any additions that the husband included). But perhaps this Mishna is only referring to a case where the husband voluntarily obligated himself to her by writing for her a kesuvah (how would you know this to be true even if he didn’t write for her a kesuvah)?

The novelty of the ruling would be to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Elozar ban Azaryah, who states that the husband wrote the addition for her with the sole objective of marrying her (and since he did not marry her, she may not claim it).

Perhaps you will say that this halacha is derives from the following braisa taught by Rav Chiya bar Avin: If a wife from erusin dies, the husband is not deemed to be an onein (one whose close relative passed away and has not been buried yet), he may not become tamei to her if he is a Kohen; and similarly (if he dies) she is not an onein, she does not have to be busy with his burial. If she dies, he does not inherit her and if he dies, she collects her kesuvah. But perhaps this braisa is only referring to a case where the husband voluntarily obligated himself to her by writing for her a kesuvah (how would you know this to be true even if he didn’t write for her a kesuvah)?

The novelty of the ruling would be to teach us that if she dies, he would not inherit her. (The Gemora concludes that there is no Tannaic source teaching us that a woman, widowed from erusin has a right to collect her kesuvah even without producing her kesuvah.) (89b)
Tearing her Get

Rav Nachman asked Rav Huna: According to Rav, who maintains that if the woman produces her get, she would collect the primary amount for her kesuvah (even without producing her kesuvah), why aren’t we concerned that she will collect her kesuvah with her get in this Beis Din, and then, she will use the very same get to collect her kesuvah in a different Beis Din?

Perhaps you will answer that we tear up the get after she collects her kesuvah the first time; but doesn’t she need the get in order to provide proof that she is indeed a divorcee, and thus, she will be permitted to remarry?

Rabbi Huna answers: We do tear up the get, but we write on it the following: “We ripped up this get, not because that it was invalid, but rather, it is because we do not want her collecting her kesuvah with it a second time.” (She still may use it in order to remarry.) (89b)

Mishna

The Mishna states: If a woman produced two gittin and two kesuvos, she collects two kesuvos; if she produces two kesuvos and one get, or a kesuvah and two gittin, or a kesuvah and a get and proof that her husband died, she collects only one kesuvah, for if a person divorces his wife and remarries her, he remarries her on the terms of the first kesuvah. (89b)

[END]