Ketubot

and it had been established that by 'writing'  only saying was meant!  — Abaye replied: All [married women] have a kethubah; not all, however, have fruit. In respect of what is usual the Rabbis have applied restrictions. In respect of what is not usual, however, the Rabbis have made no restrictions. But what of the case of ass-drivers  which is a common occurrence and the Rabbis have nevertheless applied no restrictions to it; for we learned: Where ass-drivers entered a town and one of them declared, 'My [produce] is new and that of my fellow is old' or 'Mine is not fit for use  but that of my fellow is fit', they are not believed; but R. Judah said, They are believed!  — Abaye replied: To any Rabbinical enactment of an absolute character  the Rabbis have applied further restrictions, but to any Rabbinical enactment of uncertain origin  the Rabbis have added no further restrictions. Raba replied: They  relaxed the law in respect of demai. R. MEIR RULED … ANY MAN WHO … GIVE … LESS etc. The expression, 'WHO … GIVE … LESS' [implies]  even [if the assignment remained a mere] stipulation.  Thus it follows that he  is of the opinion that the man's stipulation is void and that the woman receives [her full kethubah];  yet since  the man had said to her  'You will have but a maneh',  her mind is not at ease  and his intercourse is regarded as an act of prostitution.  But, surely, R. Meir was heard to rule that any stipulation  which is contrary to what is written in the Torah is  null and void, [from which it may be inferred,  may it not, that if it is] but against a law of the Rabbis it is  valid?  — R. Meir holds the view that the kethubah is a Pentateuchal institution. It was taught: R. Meir ruled, If any man assigns to a virgin  a sum less than two hundred zuz or to a widow less than a maneh his marriage is regarded as  an act of prostitution. R. Jose ruled: One is permitted [to contract such a marriage].  R. Judah ruled: If the man wished he may write out for a virgin a bond for two hundred zuz while she writes  for him, 'I have received from you a maneh'; and [he may write a bond] for a widow for a maneh while she writes  for him, 'I have received from you fifty zuz'. Is R. Jose then of the opinion that 'one is permitted [to contract such a marriage]'?  This surely is contrary [to the following:] A woman's kethubah may not be made [a charge on] movable property as a social measure.  Said R. Jose: What social measure is this?  Their  price, surely, is not fixed and they deteriorate in value.  Now, did not the first Tanna also say that [a kethubah] may not be made [a charge on movable property]?  Must he  not, consequently, have meant to say: This  applies only where he  accepted no responsibility;  but where he accepted responsibility  [the kethubah] may be made [a charge upon them].  Thereupon came R. Jose to question: Even If he  did accept responsibility how [could the kethubah be] made [a charge upon them]  when their price, surely, is not fixed and they deteriorate in value.  Now, if there,  where the diminution in value [of the movables] is only a possibility,  R. Jose provides against it, would he not even more so [adopt a similar course] here  where the diminution [of the kethubah] is a certainty? — How now! There  she did not know it  to think of surrendering her rights;  but here she was well aware [of the fact]  and has definitely surrendered her rights. The sister of Rami b. Hama was married to R. Iwia