Reference for Bava Metzia 39:1
שמע מינה איתא לדשמואל דאמר שמואל המוכר שטר חוב לחבירו וחזר ומחלו מחול ואפי' יורש מוחל
From this<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., from the fact that we do not apprehend the contingency referred to, and that consequently it must be assumed that the buyer would have no claim against the husband, even if the wife's receipt had in fact been written in Nisan. ');"><sup>1</sup></span> we may infer that Samuel's [law] holds good, for Samuel said: If one sells a note of indebtedness to one's neighbour and then renounces [the debt], it is renounced,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The borrower's debt is cancelled, and the person who bought the note of indebtedness from the lender loses his money: (Cf. B.K. 89a; B.B. 147b.) In the same way the person who bought the Kethubah from the wife while it was still unpaid loses his claim when the wife cancels the Kethubah on being paid by the husband in Tishri. ');"><sup>2</sup></span> and even the heir [of the lender] may renounce it. Abaye maintained: You may even say that Samuel's [law] does not hold good, [for] here we deal with a case where the deed of the <i>Kethubah</i> marriage is produced by her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which shows that the wife has not sold it, as otherwise the buyer would have taken possession of it. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>