Ketubot

— The fact, however, is that both  follow [the rule of] assumption; and he who stated that the halachah [was so]  was well justified, [while in respect of] him who stated that the halachah was not [so],  [it may be explained that] here  also [the ruling is based on] an assumption, that the man's object  [it is assumed] was the formation of a mutual attachment,  and such attachment has indeed been formed. R. Hanina  once sat in the presence of R. Jannai when he stated: The halachah is in agreement with R. Eleazar b. Azariah. [The Master] said to him, 'Go Out' read your Biblical verses outside;  the halachah is not in agreement with R. Eleazar b. Azariah'. R. Isaac b. Abdimi stated in the name of our Master:  The halachah is in agreement with R. Eleazar b. Azariah. R. Nahman stated in the name of Samuel: The halachah is in agreement with R. Eleazar b. Azariah. R. Nahman in his own name, however, stated that the halachah was not in agreement with R. Eleazar b. Azariah, while the Nehardeans stated in the name of R. Nahman that the halachah was in agreement with R. Eleazar b. Azariah. And though R. Nahman uttered a curse, proclaiming, 'Such and such a fate shall befall every judge who gives a ruling in agreement with the opinion of R. Eleazar b. Azariah', the halachah is nevertheless in agreement with R. Eleazar b. Azariah. And the halachah in practice is in accordance with the Opinion of R. Eleazar b. Azariah. Rabin enquired: What is the law  where the bride only entered the bridal chamber but there was no intercourse? Is the kinyan R. Ashi enquired: What is the law23  where [a bride] entering the bridal chamber became menstruous?  If you should find [some reason] for saying that it is the affectionate attachment in the bridal chamber that effects the kinyan  [the question still remains whether this applies only to] a bridal chamber that is a prelude  to intercourse but not to a bridal chamber that is no prelude to intercourse,  or is there perhaps no difference?  — This remains unanswered. R. JUDAH SAID: IF [A HUSBAND] WISHES HE MAY WRITE OUT FOR A VIRGIN etc. Does R. Judah hold the opinion that a quittance is written?  Surely we learned: If a person repaid part of his debt, R. Judah said, he  must exchange [the bond for another].  R. Jose said: He  must write a quittance for him!  — R. Jeremiah replied: [Here it is a case] where the quittance is [written] within.  Abaye replied: You may even say [that here it is a case] where the quittance is not written within.  There  it is quite correct  [to disallow the use of a quittance, since the debtor] had undoubtedly repaid him  and it is possible that the quittance might be lost and that he  would produce the bond and thus collect [the paid portion of the debt] a second time. Here,  however, did he indeed give her anything?  It is a mere statement that she addressed to him.  If, then, he preserved [the quittance] well and good;  and if he did not preserve it, well, it is he himself who is the cause of his own loss. One can well understand why Abaye did not give the explanation as R. Jeremiah, since it was not stated  that the quittance was entered within,  but why did not R. Jeremiah give the same explanation as Abaye? — The quittance here  is forbidden as a preventive measure against the [erroneous permitting of] a quittance elsewhere. The reason [for the husband's exemption  is apparently] because she gave him a quittance in writing.  If, however, [she had surrendered a portion of her kethubah] by word of mouth only [he would] not [have been exempt];  but why? This,  surely, is a monetary matter, and R. Judah was heard to rule that in a monetary matter one's stipulation  is valid. For was it not taught: If a man said to a woman, 'Behold thou art consecrated unto me  on condition that thou shalt have no [claim] upon me [for] food, raiment or conjugal rights', she is consecrated,  but the stipulation is null;  so R. Meir. R. Judah, however, said: In respect of monetary matters his stipulation is valid?  — R. Judah is of the opinion that the kethubah is a Rabbinical enactment,  and the Sages  have applied to their enactments  higher restrictions than to those of the Torah.  But what of the case of usufruct  which is a Rabbinical law and the Rabbis nevertheless did not apply any restriction to it;  for we learned: R. Judah said, He  may for all time eat the fruit of the fruit  unless he wrote out for her [the undertaking], 'I have no claim whatsoever  upon your estates and their produce and the produce of their produce for ever';