Ketubot

he is also entitled to plead, 'I have divorced her but I have already paid her the kethubah'. But since it was stated in the final clause, R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL RULED: SINCE THE TIME OF DANGER A WOMAN IS ENTITLED TO COLLECT HER KETHUBAH WITHOUT A LETTER OF DIVORCE AND A CREDITOR IS ENTITLED TO COLLECT [HIS DEBT] WITHOUT A PROSBUL, [it follows that] we are dealing with a case where witnesses to the divorce are present; for had no such witnesses been present whereby could she have collected [her kethubah]?  — [The fact], however, is that the entire Mishnah represents the view of R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, but some clauses are missing, the correct reading being the following: NEED NOT BE PAID'. This applies only where no witnesses to the divorce are present, but if such witnesses are present she is entitled to collect her additional jointure. As to the statutory kethubah, if she produces her letter of divorce she may collect it, but if she does not produce her letter of divorce she may not collect it.  Since the time of danger, however, a woman may collect her kethubah even if she does not produce her letter of divorce, for R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL RULED; SINCE THE TIME OF DANGER A WOMAN IS ENTITLED TO COLLECT HER KETHUBAH WITHOUT A LETTER OF DIVORCE AND A CREDIT OR [IS ENTITLED TO COLLECT HIS DEBT] WITHOUT A PROSBUL'. R. Kahana and R. Assi said to Rab; According to the ruling you have laid down that the statutory kethubah is collected by the letter of divorce, [the question arises,] whereby does a woman who was widowed after her marriage collect her kethubah? [Obviously] through the witnesses [who testify to the] death [of her husband]. Should we not, however, take into consideration the possibility that her husband might have divorced her and that she might subsequently  produce the letter of divorce  and collect  with it also? — [A widow may collect her kethubah only] if she lived with her husband.  But is it not possible that he might have divorced her near the time of his death?  — [In such a case] it is he  who has brought the loss upon himself. Whereby does a woman who was widowed after her betrothal collect her kethubah? [Obviously] by the witnesses [who testify to the man's] death. Should we not, however, take into consideration the possibility that the man might have divorced her and that she would subsequently produce her letter of divorce and collect with it also?  — [This],  however, [is the explanation:]  Where no other course is possible a quittance may be written.  For were you not to admit this [the objection might be raised even in respect of] the very witnesses [who testify to her husband's] death:  The possibility should be considered that the woman might present [one pair of] witnesses to [her husband's] death before one court and so collect [her kethubah] and then present [another pair] before another court and collect it [again]. It must he obvious, therefore,  that where no other course is possible a quittance may be written. Said Mar Kashisha the son of R. Hisda to R. Ashi: Whence is it derived that a woman who was widowed after her betrothal is entitled to a kethubah.  If it be suggested [that it may he derived] from this passage: 'A woman who was widowed or divorced either after her betrothal or after her marriage is entitled to collect all  [that is due to her]',  is it not possible [it may be retorted that this applies to a case] where the man had written a kethubah for her? And were you to argue. 'If he has written one for her, what need was there to tell [such an obvious rule?' It could be retorted that it serves the purpose] of rejecting the view of R. Eleazar b. Azariah who maintained that 'the man wrote the [additional jointure] for her with the sole object of marrying her'.  The inference too [from the Mishnah cited leads to the same conclusion].  For it has been stated, '[She] is entitled to collect all [that is due to her]'. Now if you agree that [this is a case where] the man had written [a kethubah] for her one can well understand why she 'is entitled to collect all [that is due to her]'.  If you submit, however, that the man did not write a kethubah for her, what [it may be objected is the justification for the expression.] 'is entitled to collect all', seeing that she is only entitled to one hundred or two hundred  zuz?  [Should it,] however, [be suggested that the law  may be derived] from that which R. Hiyya b. Abin  taught: 'In the case of a betrothed wife  [a husband] is neither [subject to the laws of] onan  nor may he  defile himself for her,  and she likewise is not subject to the laws of the onan  nor is she  obliged  to defile herself for him;  if she died he  does not inherit from her though if he died she is entitled to collect the amount of her kethubah',  is it not possible [it might be retorted that this refers only to a case] where the man had written a kethubah for her? And should you argue. 'If he had written one for her what need was there to state [such an obvious ruling?' It might be replied that] 'it was necessary [in order to inform us that if] she died he does not inherit from her'. R. Nahman said to R. Huna: According to Rab who laid down that a letter of divorce [enables a woman to] collect her statutory kethubah, is there no cause to apprehend that she might produce the letter of divorce at one court of law and collect her kethubah therewith and then again produce it at another court of law and collect therewith [a second time]? And should you reply that it might be torn up,  could she not [it may be retorted] demand, 'I need [it to be enabled] thereby  to marry again? — [What we do is,] we tear it up and endorse on the back of it: 'This letter of divorce has been torn by us, not because it is an invalid document but in order to prevent the woman from collecting therewith a second payments. MISHNAH. [A WOMAN WHO PRODUCED] TWO LETTERS OF DIVORCE AND TWO KETHUBAHS MAY  COLLECT PAYMENT OF THE TWO KETHUBAHS.  [IF SHE PRODUCES, HOWEVER.] TWO KETHUBAHS AND ONE LETTER OF DIVORCE  OR ONE KETHUBAH AND TWO LETTERS OF DIVORCE,  OR A KETHUBAH, A LETTER OF DIVORCE AND [EVIDENCE OF HER HUSBAND'S] DEATH,  SHE MAY COLLECT PAYMENT FOR ONE KETHUBAH ONLY, FOR ANY MAN WHO DIVORCES HIS WIFE AND THEN REMARRIES HER CONTRACTS HIS SECOND MARRIAGE ON THE CONDITION OF THE FIRST KETHUBAH. GEMARA. If she desired it, she  could [evidently]  collect [payment of her kethubah] either with the one kethubah or with the other.  May it not then be argued that this ruling presents an objection against the ruling which R. Nahman stated in the name of Samuel? For R. Nahman stated in the name of Samuel: Where two bills  are issued one after the other  the latter annuls the former!  — Has it not been stated in connection with this ruling that R. Papa said: 'R. Nahman in fact admits that if one  has added in the [second] bill one palm-tree  [it is assumed that] he has written it  for the sake of that addition',  so also here [it is a case] where the husband has added something for her [in the second kethubah]. Our Rabbis taught: If [a woman] produced a letter of divorce, a kethubah and [evidence of her husband's] death