Bava Metzia — Daf 18a

מאי גובה את הכל מנה ומאתים הוא דאית לה

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

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

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

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

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

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:

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

גמ׳ טעמא דנמלך שלא לתנן הא אמר תנו נותנין ואפילו לזמן מרובה

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

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

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

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

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 zuz  [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  nor is he allowed to defile himself.  In similar circumstances the woman is not deemed a mourner and is not obliged to defile herself  [if he dies]. [Also] if she dies he does not inherit her [property];  if he dies she exacts the payment of her Kethubah'  — [it could be objected]: perhaps [this refers to a case where the betrothed man] had written her [a Kethubah]. And if you will argue: If he wrote her a Kethubah 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]!  — [It must therefore be said that Abaye corrected himself because of what the Mishnah  itself Says, [and he argued thus]: If you held the view that we deal here with a place where no Kethubah is [usually] written, the [production of the] bill of divorcement having [there] the same effect as [the production of] her Kethubah,  [it could be refuted by the question]: Does a bill of divorcement contain [the figures] 'one hundred zuz' or 'two hundred zuz'?  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  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? MISHNAH. 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. GEMARA. [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]  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  it is valid, if not,  it is invalid!  — Rabbah said: It is no contradiction: There [the reference is] to a place where caravans pass frequently;  here [in our Mishnah the reference is] to a place where caravans do not pass frequently. And  even in a place where caravans pass frequently this [law  only applies to a case] where two [persons called] 'Joseph ben Simeon'  are known to be in the same town.  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,  a place [situate] by the canal Rakis.' R. Huna said: