Bava Metzia — Daf 17b

לא אמר כלום מאי טעמא כל מעשה בית דין כמאן דנקיט שטרא בידיה דמי

א"ל רבי חייא בר אבא לרבי יוחנן ולא משנתינו היא זו (כתובות פח ב) הוציאה גט ואין עמו כתובה גובה כתובתה

א"ל אי לאו דדלאי לך חספא לא משכחת מרגניתא תותה

אמר אביי מאי מרגניתא דלמא במקום שאין כותבין כתובה עסקינן דגט היינו כתובתה אבל במקום שכותבין כתובה אי נקיטא כתובה גביא אי לא לא גביא

הדר אמר אביי לאו מלתא היא דאמרי דאי סלקא דעתך במקום שאין כותבין כתובה עסקינן אבל במקום שכותבין כתובה אי נקיטא כתובה גביא אי לא לא גביא אלמנה מן האירוסין במאי גביא

בעדי מיתת בעל לטעון ולימא פרעתיה וכי תימא הכי נמי אם כן מה הועילו חכמים בתקנתן

א"ל מר קשישא בריה דרב חסדא לרב אשי ואלמנה מן האירוסין דאית לה כתובה מנא לן

אילימא מהא דתנן נתארמלה או נתגרשה בין מן האירוסין ובין מן הנישואין גובה את הכל דלמא היכא דכתב לה

וכי תימא מאי למימרא לאפוקי מדרבי אלעזר בן עזריה דאמר שלא כתב לה אלא על מנת לכונסה אצטריכא ליה

דיקא נמי דקתני גובה את הכל אי אמרת בשלמא דכתב לה היינו דקא תני גובה את הכל אלא אי אמרת דלא כתב לה

says nothing.  What is the reason? Every act of the Court is regarded as [if it constituted] a document placed in the hand [of the claimant].  R. Hiyya b. Abba then said to R. Johanan [himself]: And is not this [implied in] our Mishnah [which says]: If she produces a bill of divorcement unaccompanied by the Kethubah, she may exact payment of [the money due to her in accordance with] her Kethubah.  [R. Johanan then] answered him: If I had not lifted the sherd for you, you would not have found the pearl underneath.  Abaye asked: What pearl [has R. Hiyya b. Abba found]?  Maybe we deal [in the Mishnah] with a place where a marriage-contract is not [usually] written,  so that her bill of divorcement serves the purpose of a Kethubah, but in a place where a Kethubah is [usually] written [the law would be that] if she produces her Kethubah she may exact payment, but that if [she does] not [produce it she may] not [exact payment]?  Later Abaye corrected himself: What I said  is really no argument; for if you were to assume that the reference [in the Mishnah] is to a place where a Kethubah is not [usually] written, but that in a place where a Kethubah is [usually] written [the law would be that] if she produces her Kethubah she may exact payment, but not if she does not — how would a woman who became a widow after erusin  exact payment?  If by [the evidence of] witnesses [testifying] to the death of the husband [the latter's heirs] could plead and say: 'She has been paid [already].' And if you will say, 'It is really so,'  then what have the Sages achieved by their provision? Mar Kashisha, the son of R. Hisda, then said to R. Ashi: And how do we know that a [woman who became a] widow after erusin is entitled to [payment of] the Kethubah?  If I should say [that we derive it] from the passage which we learnt: 'A woman who became a widow or was divorced, either after erusin or nesu'in, exacts payment of all [that is due her from her deceased husband]'  — perhaps [this refers to a case] where [the betrothed man or the husband] had written her [a Kethubah]. And if you will argue: 'What need is there to tell us this?' [I will answer]: In order [to let us know] that we must reject the view of R. Eleazar b. Azariah, who says that he did write her the Kethubah except on condition that he would wed her.  It is necessary [to let us know that this is not so].  It can also be proved [that the Mishnah really deals with a case where there is a written Kethubah], for it says, '[She] exacts payment of all [that is due to her]' — if you agree that [the case is one where the husband] wrote a Kethubah, there is an explanation why [the Mishnah] uses the term, '[She] exacts payment of all [that is due to her].'  But if you say that he did not write her [a Kethubah],