Bava Metzia 35

מאי גובה את הכל מנה ומאתים הוא דאית לה

what is the meaning of the term, '[She] exacts payment of all [that is due to her],' seeing that she is only entitled to a hundred or two hundred <i>zuz</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One hundred in the case of a widow, and two hundred in the case of a virgin, which become due when the husband divorces her or dies. ');">¹</span>

ואלא מדתני רב חייא בר אמי אשתו ארוסה לא אונן ולא מטמא לה (יבמות עג א, זבחים ק ב) וכן היא לא אוננת ולא מטמאה לו מתה אינו יורשה מת הוא גובה כתובתה

[and no more]? Again, if [you will say that we derive the law] from that which R. Hiyya b. Ammi learnt: 'If the betrothed wife [of a priest dies] he [the priest] is not deemed a mourner<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], the designation of a mourner between the time of the death of a relative and the burial (after which he becomes an [H]). During that period of mourning a priest is not allowed to partake of sacrificial meat or other holy food. But mere erusin does not constitute relationship to the extent that the death of the betrothed woman should render the laws of mourning applicable to the bereaved priest. ');">²</span>

דלמא דכתב לה וכי תימא דכתב לה מאי למימרא מתה אינו יורשה איצטריכא ליה

nor is he allowed to defile himself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XXI, 1-4. A wife is regarded as [H] ('his flesh', cf. Gen. II, 24) for whom a priest may defile himself, but not a betrothed woman. ');">³</span>

אלא אביי מגופה דמתני' קא הדר ביה דאי ס"ד במקום שאין כותבין כתובה עסקינן דגט היינו כתובתה אטו גט מנה מאתים כתיב ביה

In similar circumstances the woman is not deemed a mourner and is not obliged to defile herself<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The laws of defilement do not apply to a woman, whether she be the wife or the daughter of a priest (as the text speaks of 'the sons of Aaron', not the daughters or wives). On the other hand it is the duty of both men and women, whether of priestly descent or not, to attend to the burial of their dead relations, but betrothal does not constitute relationship in this respect, and there is no obligation on the part of a woman (or a man) to attend to the burial of her (or his) betrothed. ');">⁴</span>

וכי תימא כיון דתקינו רבנן למגבא לה כמאן דכתיב ביה דמי לטעון ולימא פרעתי

[if he dies]. [Also] if she dies he does not inherit her [property];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While a husband inherits his deceased wife's property (cf. B.B. 111b) he does not inherit the property of his betrothed. ');">⁵</span>

וכי תימא דאמרינן ליה אי פרעתה איבעי לך למיקרעיה אמר לן לא שבקתן אמרה בעינא לאנסובי ביה

if he dies she exacts the payment of her Kethubah'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yeb. 29b; Sanh. 28b. ');">⁶</span>

וכי תימא אמרינן ליה איבעי לך למיקרעיה ומכתב אגביה גיטא דנן דקרענוהו לא משום דגיטא פסולה הוא אלא כי היכי דלא תגבי ביה זמנא אחריתי אטו כל דמגבי בבי דינא מגבי:

— [it could be objected]: perhaps [this refers to a case where the betrothed man] had written her [a <i>Kethubah</i>]. And if you will argue: If he wrote her a <i>Kethubah</i> what need is there to tell us [that she may exact payment]? [I will answer]: It is necessary [to let us know that] if she dies he does not inherit her [property]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As this law had to be stated, the matter of the Kethubah is also mentioned. ');">⁷</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> מצא גיטי נשים ושחרורי עבדים (קידושין כב ב) "דייתיקי מתנה ושוברין הרי זה לא יחזיר שאני אומר כתובין היו ונמלך עליהן שלא לתנן:

— [It must therefore be said that Abaye corrected himself because of what the Mishnah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of Keth. 88b cited above. ');">⁸</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> טעמא דנמלך שלא לתנן הא אמר תנו נותנין ואפילו לזמן מרובה

itself Says, [and he argued thus]: If you held the view that we deal here with a place where no <i>Kethubah</i> is [usually] written, the [production of the] bill of divorcement having [there] the same effect as [the production of] her <i>Kethubah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that it may be argued that the Kethubah is due to be paid, not because of the provision of the Rabbis, but because the bill of divorcement constitutes a written document, on the strength of which the money can be claimed. ');">⁹</span>

ורמינהו (גיטין כז א) המביא גט ואבד הימנו מצאו לאלתר כשר אם לאו פסול

[it could be refuted by the question]: Does a bill of divorcement contain [the figures] 'one hundred zuz' or 'two hundred zuz'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It cannot be maintained that the bill of divorcement constitutes a document by means of which the payment of the Kethubah can be exacted, as such a document, if used for the purpose of collecting a debt, would have to state the amount due to be collected, and a bill of divorcement contains no such statement. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר רבה לא קשיא כאן במקום שהשיירות מצויות כאן במקום שאין השיירות מצויות

And if you will Say: seeing that the Rabbis have provided [that the production of the bill of divorcement entitles the woman] to exact payment it is just as if [the figures] were written in it, the objection could still be raised: Let him [the husband] plead and say, 'I have [already] paid up.' And if you will argue that we could say to him, 'If you paid you should have torn up [the bill of divorcement],' [the answer would be:] They could reply, 'She did not let me [tear it up], as she said: I wish to keep it [as evidence that I am free] to marry again.' And if you will argue [further]: 'We could say to him, You should have torn it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., made a tear in it, without destroying it. This is usually done to a bill of divorcement after it has been handed to the woman. ');">¹¹</span>

ואפי' במקום שהשיירות מצויות והוא שהוחזקו שני יוסף בן שמעון בעיר אחת

and have written on it: This bill of divorcement has been torn by us, not because it is an invalid bill, but to prevent it being used for the purpose of exacting payment a second time,' [the answer would be:] Do all who exact payment [of a debt] exact such payment in a Court of Law?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is only when payment is made in a Court of Law that one can expect the document to be endorsed in the way suggested, but people do not always pay their debts in Court. So that even if it be admitted that the mere production of the bill of divorcement entitles the woman to demand payment of the amount of the Kethubah just as if the amount were stated in the bill, one could not maintain that the husband would not be believed if he pleaded 'I have paid already,' seeing that he has good reason for not having had destroyed the bill of divorcement on payment. It must therefore be assumed that the reason why payment of the Kethubah can be enforced against the plea of the husband is that it is based on an enactment of the Courts, and in accordance with the dictum of R. Johanan given above. ');">¹²</span>

דאי לא תימא הכי קשיא דרבה אדרבה דההוא גיטא דאשתכח בי דינא דרב הונא דהוה כתוב ביה בשוירי מתא דעל רכיס נהרא אמר רב הונא

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF ONE FINDS BILLS OF DIVORCEMENT OF WIVES, [DEEDS OF] LIBERATION OF SLAVES, WILLS, DEEDS OF GIFT, AND RECEIPTS, ONE SHALL NOT RETURN THEM, FOR I SAY, THEY WERE WRITTEN, BUT HE [WHO ORDERED THEM TO BE WRITTEN] CHANGED HIS MIND [AND DECIDED] NOT TO HAND THEM OVER. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. [If] the reason why [bills of divorcement are not returned] is that [we say], HE CHANGED HIS MIND [AND DECIDED] NOT TO HAND THEM OVER, then [we must assume] that if he [who lost the document] says [to those who found it], 'Give it [to the wife]', it is given [to her]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And we do not apprehend that this is a different bill which another person has lost, and that the names in the document refer to other persons who happen to have had the same names as those given in the document which was lost and found. ');">¹³</span> even after a long time, but the following contradicts it: If one has brought a bill of divorcement [in order to deliver it on behalf of the husband] and has lost it, [the law is that] if it is found immediately<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that there is no interval during which someone else may have lost a similar document in the same place. ');">¹⁴</span> it is valid, if not,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If it is not found immediately, but after an interval, during which a caravan may have passed through the place and halted there for a meal. ');">¹⁵</span> it is invalid!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a member of the caravan may have lost it, and by some coincidence the names in the two documents may have been identical (Mishnah Git. 27a). ');">¹⁶</span> — Rabbah said: It is no contradiction: There [the reference is] to a place where caravans pass frequently;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reference in Git. is to a place where caravans often pass through, and there is a likelihood of the bill having been dropped by a member of one of these travelling companies, but our Mishnah here deals with a case where there is no such likelihood. ');">¹⁷</span> here [in our Mishnah the reference is] to a place where caravans do not pass frequently. And<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [What follows is a Talmudic comment on Rabbah's statement.] ');">¹⁸</span> even in a place where caravans pass frequently this [law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that a bill of divorcement is invalid if found after a long time. ');">¹⁹</span> only applies to a case] where two [persons called] 'Joseph ben Simeon'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A common name often given in the Talmud as one likely to be borne by two persons in the same town. ');">²⁰</span> are known to be in the same town.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in the town where the document was issued. ');">²¹</span> For if you did not maintain this, there would be a contradiction in Rabbah's own words, [as the following incident shows:] A bill of divorcement was once found in R. Huna's court-house, and in it was written, 'At Shawire,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Near Sura, v. Obermeyer, Die Landschaft Babylonian, p. 299.] ');">²²</span> a place [situate] by the canal Rakis.' R. Huna said: