Ketubot 202:1
תני תנא קמיה דרב נחמן זינתה הפסידה בלאותיה קיימין א"ל אם היא זינתה כליה מי זנאי תני לא הפסידה בלאותיה קיימין
A tanna recited in the presence of R. Nahman: [A wife who] who fornicated loses her right to her worn out articles [though they are still] in existence. He said to him, “If she fornicated, did her possessions fornicate? Teach rather: She does not lose her worn out articles [that are still] in existence.
אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן זו דברי רבי מנחם סתימתאה אבל חכמים אומרים זינתה לא הפסידה בלאותיה קיימין:
Rabbah b. Bar Hana stated in the name of R. Yohanan: Thi is the view of the unnamed R. Menahem, but the Sages ruled: [A wife who] fornicated does not lose her worn out articles that are still in existence.
אם מתחלה נשאה כו': אמר רב הונא אילונית אשה ואינה אשה אלמנה אשה גמורה
If he married her etc. R. Huna said: An aylonit [sometimes has the status of] a wife and [sometimes] does not have the status of wife; a widow [married to a high priest always has the status of] a proper wife.
אילונית אשה ואינה אשה הכיר בה יש לה כתובה לא הכיר בה אין לה כתובה אלמנה אשה גמורה בין הכיר בה בין לא הכיר בה יש לה כתובה
“An aylonit [sometimes has the status of] a wife and [sometimes] does not have the status of wife”; if the husband knew [beforehand] she is entitled to a ketubah and if he did not know, she is not entitled to a ketubah. “A widow [married to a high priest always has the status of] a proper wife” for whether her husband was aware of her [widowhood] or not, she is always entitled to a ketubah.
ורב יהודה אומר אחת זו ואחת זו אשה ואינה אשה הכיר בה יש לה כתובה לא הכיר בה אין לה כתובה
Rav Judah said: Both this one and that one [sometimes have the status of] a wife and [sometimes] does not: If her husband knew of her [condition or status] she is entitled to a ketubah and if he was not aware of it she is not entitled to a ketubah.
מיתיבי כנסה בחזקת שהיא כן ונמצאת שהיא כן יש לה כתובה הא סתמא אין לה כתובה
They objected: If [a High Priest] married on the presumption that [the woman] was a widow and it turns out that she is, she is entitled to her ketubah. This implies that if there was no presumption she is not entitled to a kethubah?
לא תימא הא סתמא אין לה כתובה אלא אימא כנסה בחזקת שאינה כן ונמצאת שהיא כן אין לה כתובה
Do not say “that if there was not a presumption she does not receive a ketubah” rather say that if he married her on the presumption that she was not a widow and it was found that she was a widow, she is not entitled to a ketubah.
אבל סתמא מאי אית לה אדתני בחזקת שהיא כן ונמצאת שהיא כן יש לה כתובה לשמעינן סתמא וכ"ש הא
What then is the ruling when he married her with no presumption? She is entitled [to a ketubah]? Then instead of stating, “On the presumption that [the woman] was a widow and it turns out that she is, she is entitled to her ketubah,” it should have taught us, “With no presumption [she is entitled to her ketubah]” and all the more so in the former?
ועוד תני כנסה בידוע ונמצאת בידוע יש לה כתובה כנסה סתם אין לה כתובה תיובתא דרב הונא
Furthermore, it was explicitly taught: If he married her believing [that she was a widow] and it was found that his belief was justified, she is entitled to a ketubah, but if he married her with no presumption she is not entitled to a ketubah. This indeed is a refutation of R. Huna.
רב הונא מתני' אטעיתיה הוא סבר מדקא מפליג באילונית ולא קמפליג באלמנה מכלל דאלמנה אפי' בסתמא נמי אית לה ולא היא כי קתני לה לאלמנה אפלוגתא דאילונית קאי:
It was our Mishnah that caused R. Huna to err. He thought that, since a distinction was drawn in the case of an aylonit and no distinction was drawn in the case of a widow, it can be inferred that a widow is entitled [to a ketubah even if she was married] with no presumption of her status. But this is not so, for when it taught the case of a widow the author intended to apply to it the distinction drawn in the case of the aylonit.
ניסת לאחר ופסקה עמו כדי שיזון את בתה חמש שנים חייב לזונה חמש שנים לא יאמר הראשון לכשתבא אצלי אזונה אלא מוליך לה מזונותיה למקום שאמה
If she was [subsequently] married to another man and cut a deal with him [as well] that he should maintain her daughter for five years, he must maintain her for five years. The first husband may not plead, “If she will come to me I will maintain her”, rather he must send her maintenance to her at the place where her mother [lives].
ניסת הבעל נותן לה מזונות והן נותנין לה דמי מזונות מתו בנותיהן ניזונות מנכסים בני חורין והיא ניזונת מנכסים משועבדים מפני שהיא כבעלת חוב
If she married her husband must supply her with maintenance and they give her the cost of her maintenance. If they die, their daughters are maintained out of their free assets only but she must be maintained even out of assigned property, because she is like a creditor.
ה"ד אי דאמר להו אתם עדיי מ"ט דר"ל דקפטר אי דלא אמר להו אתם עדיי מ"ט דרבי יוחנן דקמחייב
What is the case? If [it refers to a case] where the man said to them, “You are my witnesses,” what is the reason of Resh Lakish who holds him to be exempt? If [it is a case] where he did not say to them, “You are my witnesses,” what is the reason of R. Yohanan who holds him liable?
לעולם דלא קאמר להו אתם עדיי והכא במאי עסקינן דא"ל חייב אני לך מנה בשטר רבי יוחנן אמר חייב אלימא מילתא דשטרא כמאן דאמר להו אתם עדים דמי ר"ל אמר פטור לא אלימא מילתא דשטרא
The fact is that [the dispute relates to a case] where he did not say, “You are my witnesses,” but here we are dealing [with the case of a person] who said to another, “I owe you a maneh” in a document R. Yohanan says: He is liable, because the contents of a document have the same strength as if he said, “You are my witnesses,” but Resh Lakish says: He is exempt, because the contents of a document do not have legal force.
תנן הנושא את האשה ופסקה עמו לזון את בתה חמש שנים חייב לזונה חמש שנים מאי לאו כי האי גוונא
We learned: If a man married a woman and she made an agreement with him that he will maintain her daughter for five years, he must maintain her for five years. Does this not refer to a case like this?