Daf 18a: Ketubah, Payment Claims, and Identifying a Found Get

Here is the complete Gemara text of this daf, word for word, divided into the stages of the sugya: Mishnah, question, kushya, terutz, raya and conclusion. Read each stage in the source first, then the explanation.

1. 01·KushyaBava Metzia 18a

   מַאי ״גּוֹבָה אֶת הַכֹּל״? מָנֶה וּמָאתַיִם הוּא דְּאִית לַהּ.

   The page opens within an ongoing discussion of a betrothed woman’s ketubah. The Gemara challenges the attempt to read the preceding source as a case without a written ketubah: what does “she collects everything” mean? If she has only the basic ketubah entitlement, the amount is one hundred or two hundred zuz. Here, “everything” fits collection that also includes a written addition. The source therefore cannot establish a right to collect when no ketubah was written.

2. 02·RayaBava Metzia 18a

   וְאֶלָּא, מִדְּתָנֵי רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אַמֵּי: אִשְׁתּוֹ אֲרוּסָה, לֹא אוֹנֵן וְלֹא מִטַּמֵּא לָהּ, וְכֵן הִיא לֹא אוֹנֶנֶת וְלֹא מִטַּמְּאָה לוֹ. מֵתָה – אֵינוֹ יוֹרְשָׁהּ, מֵת הוּא – גּוֹבָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ.

   The Gemara proposes another source, taught by Rav Ḥiyya bar Ami. Betrothal does not create the full spousal status of marriage here: the man is not an onen for her and, if a priest, may not become impure for her; she likewise is not an onenet for him and has no obligation to become impure for him. This does not establish a general prohibition against a woman becoming impure through contact with the dead. If she dies, he does not inherit her, but if he dies, she collects her ketubah. The proposed inference is that a betrothed woman has a ketubah even without writing, but this depends on whether the source actually addresses that case.

3. 03·TerutzBava Metzia 18a

   דִּלְמָא דִּכְתַב לַהּ, וְכִי תֵּימָא: דִּכְתַב לַהּ, מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? מֵתָה אֵינוֹ יוֹרְשָׁהּ אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ.

   The Gemara rejects the proof: perhaps he wrote her a ketubah. On that reading, collection rests on a written undertaking and does not establish liability without writing. An internal objection follows: if he wrote it, what is novel about her collecting? The answer locates the novelty in the other clause: if she dies, he does not inherit her. Writing a ketubah does not turn betrothal into marriage for inheritance, so the teaching remains necessary without proving the proposed claim.

4. 04·TerutzBava Metzia 18a

   אֶלָּא אַבָּיֵי מִגּוּפַהּ דְּמַתְנִיתִין קָא הָדַר בֵּיהּ, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין כּוֹתְבִין כְּתוּבָה עָסְקִינַן, דְּגֵט הַיְינוּ כְּתוּבְּתַהּ, אַטּוּ גֵּט מָנֶה מָאתַיִם כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ?

   The Gemara changes the basis of the explanation: Abaye retracted because of the Mishnah itself, not the proofs about a betrothed woman. That Mishnah teaches that a woman presents a get and collects her ketubah without presenting a ketubah document. Abaye had tried to limit it to a place where ketubot are not written and to treat the get as a substitute debt document. Yet the get does not state one hundred or two hundred zuz. This opens the analysis of why the get alone cannot defeat a payment claim and why the rule that a payment claim against a court-established obligation is ineffective must be restored.

5. 05·KushyaBava Metzia 18a

   וְכִי תֵּימָא: כֵּיוָן דְּתַקִּינוּ רַבָּנַן לְמִגְבֵּא (לַהּ) [בֵּיהּ] כְּמַאן דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ דָּמֵי, לִטְעוֹן וְלֵימָא פָּרַעְתִּי.

   The Gemara tries to strengthen the get’s status through rabbinic enactment. Perhaps, since the Sages instituted collection through it, the ketubah amount counts as though written in it. Yet even if the get represents the obligation, the husband should seemingly still be able to say, “I paid.” Establishing a debt and establishing that it remains unpaid are two different foundations. An enactment allowing collection through a get therefore does not by itself explain why the payment claim fails.

6. 06·KushyaBava Metzia 18a

   וְכִי תֵּימָא דְּאָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ: אִי פְּרַעְתַּהּ אִיבְּעִי לָךְ לְמִיקְרְעֵיהּ, אָמַר לַן: לָא שְׁבַקְתַּן, אָמְרָה: בָּעֵינָא לְאִנְּסוֹבֵי בֵּיהּ.

   A response to the payment claim is proposed: if he paid, he should have torn the get. The assumption is that an intact document remaining with the claimant indicates an undischarged obligation. But the husband can answer that she prevented him from tearing it because she needs it to remarry. A get has an independent personal-status function even after the ketubah is paid. Its remaining intact therefore does not necessarily indicate an outstanding debt.

7. 07·KushyaBava Metzia 18a

   וְכִי תֵּימָא אָמְרִינַן לֵיהּ: אִיבְּעִי לָךְ לְמִיקְרְעֵיהּ וּמִכְתַּב אַגַּבֵּיהּ, גִּיטָּא דְּנַן דִּקְרַעְנוּהּו לָא מִשּׁוּם דְּגִיטָּא פְּסוּלָה הוּא, אֶלָּא כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא תִּגְבֵּי בֵּיהּ זִמְנָא אַחֲרִיתִי. אַטּוּ כֹּל דְּמַגְבֵּי, בְּבֵי דִינָא מַגְבֵּי?

   The Gemara proposes a way to preserve both functions of the get. It could be torn and annotated to explain that the tear does not indicate invalidity but prevents repeated collection. This would seemingly preserve evidence of divorce while disabling further collection. Yet not every payment occurs in court, and one cannot assume that every payer knows how to arrange such a tear and annotation. The absence of that marking therefore does not refute the husband’s claim, and Abaye’s explanation based solely on the get fails. This continues the tractate’s examination of documents: possession of paper does not always show that its financial entitlement remains in force.

8. 08·Mishnah / BaraitaBava Metzia 18a

   מַתְנִי׳ מָצָא גִּיטֵּי נָשִׁים וְשִׁחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים, דְּיָיתֵיקֵי, מַתָּנָה, וְשׁוֹבָרִין – הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יַחֲזִיר. שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: כְּתוּבִין הָיוּ, וְנִמְלַךְ עֲלֵיהֶן שֶׁלֹּא לִתְּנָן.

   The Mishnah opens a new unit about found documents. It lists bills of divorce, slave emancipation documents, deathbed wills, gift documents, and receipts. They must not be returned because their makers may have written them but reconsidered and never delivered them. Writing shows preparation for an act, not necessarily its completion. Returning a document could place apparent evidence of a right in the hands of someone who never acquired it. As in earlier mishnayot about found documents, returning lost property requires examining the legal harm that return could cause.

9. 09·Conclusion of the sugyaBava Metzia 18a

   גְּמָ׳ טַעְמָא דְּנִמְלַךְ שֶׁלֹּא לִתְּנָן, הָא אָמַר: ״תְּנוּ״ – נוֹתְנִין, וַאֲפִילּוּ לִזְמַן מְרוּבֶּה.

   The Gemara draws an inference from the Mishnah’s stated reason. If return is barred because the maker may have reconsidered, his instruction “Give it” seemingly removes that concern. This implies return even after a long interval, since the Mishnah makes no distinction between intervals. This is an initial inference, not an unrestricted authorization to return every found document. The next issue is whether the maker’s consent also resolves the document’s identity.

10. 10·KushyaBava Metzia 18a

    וּרְמִינְהוּ: הַמֵּבִיא גֵּט, וְאָבַד הֵימֶנּוּ – מְצָאוֹ לְאַלְתַּר כָּשֵׁר, אִם לָאו – פָּסוּל.

    The Gemara challenges the inference with a Mishnah about an agent delivering a get who loses it. If he finds it immediately, it is valid; otherwise, it is invalid. Here the concern is not that the husband reconsidered but that the found get is not the lost one. Even a clear intention to deliver a get does not identify this particular paper. The apparent permission after a long interval therefore conflicts with the rule for a lost get.

11. 11·TerutzBava Metzia 18a

    אָמַר רַבָּה, לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן – בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהַשְּׁיָירוֹת מְצוּיוֹת, כָּאן – בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין הַשַּׁיָּירוֹת מְצוּיוֹת.

    Rabbah resolves the contradiction by distinguishing locations. Invalidity after a delay applies where caravans frequently pass. The permission inferred from our Mishnah applies where caravans do not frequently pass. Many travelers provide grounds to suspect that another document reached the location. Time therefore does not operate alone: its significance depends on the setting of the discovery and the possibility of document substitution.

12. 12·TerutzBava Metzia 18a

    וַאֲפִילּוּ בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהַשְּׁיָירוֹת מְצוּיוֹת – וְהוּא שֶׁהוּחְזְקוּ שְׁנֵי יוֹסֵף בֶּן שִׁמְעוֹן בְּעִיר אַחַת.

    The Gemara further qualifies Rabbah’s answer. Even where caravans frequently pass, the stated concern requires two people named Yosef ben Shimon to be established in one city. This is a case of two people with identical names, creating a concrete possibility of mistaken identification. Within this resolution, traffic alone is insufficient; known duplication of names is also required. The conditions work together: the names supply another candidate, and the travelers explain how another document could arrive here.

13. 13·RayaBava Metzia 18a

    דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבָּה אַדְּרַבָּה. דְּהָהוּא גִּיטָּא דְּאִשְׁתְּכַח בֵּי דִינָא דְּרַב הוּנָא, דַּהֲוָה כְּתִוב בֵּיהּ בִּשְׁוִירֵי מָתָא דְּעַל רָכִיס נַהֲרָא. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא:

    The Gemara begins supporting the qualification through the need to reconcile Rabbah with himself. It introduces an incident involving a get found in Rav Huna’s court. The get named its location as Shviri, on the Rakhis River. The incident is meant to test the get’s identification and its consistency with Rabbah’s position, but the supporting argument has only begun. The excerpt ends with “Rav Huna said,” before his words and before Rabbah’s position in the incident appears. We therefore cannot infer from this page alone what Rav Huna ruled or how the argument was completed.

1. 1Why does Rav Ḥiyya bar Ami’s teaching not prove that a betrothed woman has a ketubah without writing? Answer in your own words and support your explanation with a phrase from the Gemara.
2. 2Why does an intact get not necessarily prove that the ketubah remains unpaid? Answer in your own words and support your explanation with a phrase from the Gemara.
3. 3Which concern explicitly underlies the Mishnah about found documents? Answer in your own words and support your explanation with a phrase from the Gemara.
4. 4Under the qualification of Rabbah’s position on this page, what is required for the stated concern about substitution after a delay? Answer in your own words and support your explanation with a phrase from the Gemara.
5. 5What can be established about the incident in Rav Huna’s court from the end of this page alone? Answer in your own words and support your explanation with a phrase from the Gemara.