וזו הואיל ואין לה קול איתרע לה רובא — And this woman since she has no supportive public awareness, her majority status is flawed. O VERVIEW The גמרא teaches us that beside that רוב נשים בתולות נישאות; there is also רוב הנישאת בתולה יש לה קול. Therefore in a case where there is no קול, then the רוב נשים בתולה נישאות is flawed; we can no longer assume that she was נישאת as a בתולה. It is the assumption of תוספות that if there is no קול, it is considered as if רוב נשים בתולות נישאות is nonexistent. The opposing רוב הנישאת בתולה יש לה קול cancels out the רוב נשים בתולות נישאות. Therefore if there is no קול, two עדים are required to establish her as a בתולה. ----------------– תוספות asks: תימה דתנן בפירקין (לקמן כח, א) אלו נאמנים להעיד בגודלן מה שראו בקטנותן – It is astounding! For we have learnt in a משנה in this פרק, ‘these people are believed to testify in their adulthood what the saw in their childhood’. The משנה enumerates: זכורני בפלונית שיצאה בהינומא וראשה פרוע – ‘I remember that woman who appeared (at her marriage ceremony) with a הינומא and uncovered hair’; indicating that she was a בתולה. This concludes the quote from the משנה. וקאמר בגמרא מאי טעמא – And the גמרא comments; what is the reason that he is believed to testify in this instance. He was only a קטן when he observed it, and a קטן is פסול לעדות. The גמרא there explains – כיון דרוב נשים בתולות נישאות גילוי מילתא בעלמא הוא – Since most women get married as בתולות, therefore when he testifies that she was a בתולה it is not considered an actual testimony, but rather it is merely revealing something that is evident anyway. This concludes the quote from the גמרא. תוספות continues with the question: והשתא היכי מיירי – And now let us consider, what occurred in that משנה? – אם יש לה קול למה צריך שום עדות לרב ניזל בתר רובא כדפריך הכא – if there is public awareness that she was a בתולה why is any testimony required at all according to רב; let us follow the majority, as the גמרא asks here ; that since there is a רוב, no עדות is required – ואי אין לה קול אם כן איתרע לה רובא ויצטרך שני עדים כשרים – And if there is no קול that she was a בתולה; if that is true, then her רוב is flawed and two עדים כשרים should be required to testify that she is a בתולה; not merely those who saw בקטנותן, and are not עדים כשרים. תוספות anticipates a possible solution, and refutes it: וכי תימא דכשמעיד הוא שראה בקוטנו ואחר עמו חשבינן קול – And if you will claim that the reason it is not איתרע לה רובה, is that when he testifies what he saw as a minor, and another adult (who observed it as an adult) testifies with him; this testimony itself is considered a קול. Therefore his testimony (together with another adult) fulfills the requirement of creating a קול. Once there is a קול, she collects her full כתובה, on account of the רוב. Their testimony created the קול; there is no איתרע לה רובה. תוספות rejects this idea that the testimony of these two alone can create a קול: הא פריך הכא סהדי שקרי נינהו – for the גמרא here challenges the idea that two עדים are to be believed when there is no קול, by arguing these (two who testify) are false witnesses. We derive from this גמרא that if there is no external קול, then even if two עדים כשרים testify that she was a בתולה, they cannot create a קול. Certainly there, where one עד was not כשר, since he was ראה בקטנותו, then certainly they cannot create a קול. The question remains: If they cannot create a קול, it becomes איתרע לה רובה, and two עדים כשרים should be required. תוספות answers: ויש לומר דרוב נשים בתולות נישאות עדיף מרוב נשים הנישאות בתולות יש לה קול – And one can say that the fact that most women are married as בתולות; this רוב is superior to the fact that most women who marry as בתולות have a קול. The former רוב is superior to the latter רוב. וכי אין לה קול לא יתרע כל כך רוב דבתולות נישאות – And therefore even if this particular woman has no קול that she was married as a בתולה, nevertheless the רוב of בתולות נישאות will not be that much flawed, to the extent – שלא יועיל עדות דראה בקוטנו ואחר עמו: That the testimony of what he saw בקוטנו together with another’s testimony should not be sufficient to establish her as a בתולה. תוספות still maintains his previous conviction that (even) two עדים alone do not create a קול. Therefore in the case of ראו בקטנותן, there was no קול. However according to the מסקנא of the גמרא it is only רוב הנישאת בתולות יש לה קול, not all הנישאות בתולות have a קול. If the two majorities of נישאות בתולות and נישאות בתולות יש להן קול would be equal, (and there was no קול) then they would cancel out each other and two עדים כשרים would be required (as it seems from our משנה). However תוספות teaches us that they are not equal. The רוב of בתולות נישאות is superior to the רוב of נישאות בתולות יש להן קול. Therefore even if there is no קול, we do not assume that they cancel out each other completely; it is merely that the רוב נשים בתולות נישאות is only slightly flawed. To remedy this minor flaw and to substantiate the רוב נשים בתולות נישאות, it is sufficient to have one עד who was ראה בקטנותו together with another עד כשר, to establish her as a בתולה. S UMMARY The רוב of נשים בתולות נישאות is superior to the רוב of הנישאות בתולה יש לה קול. If there is no קול, there is only a minor ריעותא in רוב נשים בתולות נישאות. This ריעותא can be remedied if there is an עד who saw בקטנותו together with an עד כשר that she was יצאה בהינומא וכו׳. T HINKING IT OVER 1. תוספות proved from the statement הני סהדי שקרי נינהו, that עדים alone cannot make a קול. Perhaps we can question this premise. The גמרא stated this when we assumed that כ ל הנישאת בתולה יש לה קול. How do we know that this is valid according to the מסקנא that merely ר וב הנישאת בתולה יש לה קול? Perhaps even two עדים alone can make a קול (even if one of them was ראה בקטנותו)? 2. How are we to understand the superiority of one רוב over the other? Is it a matter of percentages, that one רוב has a greater percentage than the other; or is there another way to explain the superiority of one רוב over the other? 3. If we maintain אין הולכין בממון אחר הרוב, what would be the דין if one of the two עדים was testifying מה שראה בקטנותו, does she collect her כתובה?
וליחוש דלמא מפקא כולי — And let us be concerned, perhaps she will produce, etc. O VERVIEW There is a dispute between רבי אבהו and רב פפא concerning the writing of a receipt. In a case where the לוה admits owing the מלוה; however the לוה requests that the שטר חוב be returned to him. The מלוה claims that he lost the שטר חוב and is willing to give the לוה a receipt instead of the שט״ח. The לוה however, is not satisfied with the receipt, because he is concerned that he may lose it, and the מלוה will produce the שט״ח (the he claimed he ‘lost’) and will fraudulently collect a second time on his loan. ר״א maintains that since the לוה admits that he owes the money, he must pay. His only recourse is to safeguard the שובר; to protect him from fraudulent claims. ר״פ maintains that we must protect the לוה. He is not required to repay the loan unless the מלוה returns the שטר. Our משנה states that a woman may collect a כתובה of a בתולה – מאתיים זוז, on the basis of עדי הינומא. She does not have to present the כתובה at all. Seemingly the only way to protect the husband that she should not claim her כתובה a second time is by having the woman write a שובר. Our משנה seems to support the view of ר״א. Otherwise (according to ר״פ), the husband should claim that he will not pay her anything until she produces the כתובה. Our תוספות will explain how indeed there is a difference to the husband whether she returns the כתובה or whether she just writes a שובר. -------------------– The גמרא initially asks that we should be concerned that perhaps she will collect a second time. תוספות first explains what the גמרא assumed how this concern should be addressed. ואפילו על ידי עדי הינומא לא היה לה לגבות עד שתחזיר לו הכתובה – And even with the witnesses that she wore a הינומא she should not be able to collect her כתובה until she returns the כתובה to her husband – כיון שיכול לבוא לידי הפסד במה שנשארה כתובה תחת ידה – Since the husband can suffer a loss by the fact that the כתובה remains in her possession. This is the intent of the question וליחוש דלמא מפקא וכו׳. תוספות will now clarify what loss can the husband incur if she retains the כתובה, as opposed to, if she returns the כתובה to him. דלא מיבעיא למאן דאמר דיכול לטעון אחר מעשה בית דין דמפסיד – For there is no question that there will be a loss to the husband according to the one who maintains that one may counterclaim an act of בי״ד; that he will lose if she retains the כתובה. There is a difference to the husband whether she returns the כתובה or whether she gives him a שובר – דאם לא יהיה לה כתובה יהיה נאמן לומר פרעתי – For if she will not have the כתובה in her possession; she will have returned it to him (which proves that he paid it), then even if he loses the כתובה, nevertheless he will be believed to claim ‘I paid’ the כתובה; if she claims it a second time (after being paid previously). However if the כתובה is in her possession then (if he loses the שובר) he cannot claim פרעתי, since she has the כתובה. It is like any שטר חוב which the מלוה presents. The לוה cannot claim פרעתי. Therefore it is readily understood that the husband stands to lose (according to the מ״ד that יכול לטעון פרעתי אחר מעשה בי״ד) if she does not return the כתובה. תוספות continues to explain that even according to the מ״ד that you cannot be טוען פרעתי אחר מעשה בי״ד, where seemingly there is no real difference if she returns the כתובה or not; nevertheless there is a difference. אלא אפילו למאן דאמר דלא מצי טעין אחר מעשה בית דין – But even according to the one who maintains that one cannot counterclaim an act of בי״ד; the husband cannot claim פרעתי, even if the woman does not produce a כתובה. It would seem that there is no difference whether the woman retains the כתובה or not. In either case he cannot claim פרעתי. According to this מ״ד, what is the difference whether she returns the כתובה or not? What is the question וליחוש וכו׳? Most importantly, how can we derive from our משנה that כותבין שובר?! תוספות states that there is a difference: מפסיד במה שהכתובה תחת ידה שאם תתבענו פעם אחרת ולא יהיה לה עדי הינומא – He will nevertheless lose if she retains the כתובה in her possession, for if she will present a claim against him another time and she will not have עדי הינומא, this second time – יהא נאמן לומר פרעתי מנה במגו דאי בעי אמר אלמנה נשאתיך – He will at least be believed to claim that I paid you a מנה with a מגו that he could have said I married you as an אלמנה and you deserve only a מנה. If he would have claimed אלמנה נשאתיך he would be believed to pay her only a מנה, since she has no עדי הינומא. Therefore if he says I paid you one מנה out of the two he will also be believed. He will merely owe her one מנה instead of two. He will lose this right if she retains the כתובה as תוספות will shortly state. תוספות offers another situation in which the husband will lose even more money if she retains the כתובה: או אם יהיה במקום שאין מכירין אם היא אשתו – Or if the husband will be in a place where the people there are not aware whether she is his wife; in that case, if she is not in possession of the כתובה – יהא נאמן לומר פרעתי הכל במגו דאי בעי אמר אין את אשתי – He will be believed to claim I paid you everything with a מגו that he could have said, ‘you are not my wife’. I owe you nothing. She cannot prove that she is his wife, since no one there is aware of their marriage. והשתא שהכתובה בידה תוציא מאתיים – However, now that the כתובה is in her possession she will extract from him two hundred זוז. In the first case he will suffer a loss of one hundred זוז and in the second case a loss of two hundred זוז. וכיון שיכול לבא לידי הפסד אין לו לפרוע: And since it is possible that he will suffer a loss by her not returning the כתובה he should not be obligated to pay; until he is assured that he will not suffer any loss due to the fact that the כתובה is in her possession. The fact that the משנה was not concerned about his potential loss proves that כותבין שובר. If a person admits that he owes money, he is required to pay even if the claimant does not return the שטר. The claimant is only required to provide the payer with a receipt. It is the responsibility of the payer to safeguard the receipt. S UMMARY There is a loss to the husband if the woman retains the כתובה. According to the מ״ד that מצי טעין אחר מעשה בי״ד, he loses the טענה of פרעתי. According to the מ״ד that לא מצי טעין וכו׳, he loses either the מגו of אלמנה נשאתיך or אין את אשתי. Therefore (if אין כותבין שובר), he should not pay her until she returns the כתובה. T HINKING IT OVER When תוספות states that he would be believed for a מנה with a מגו of אלמנה נשאתיך;is that in a case where he claims I paid you partially (a מנה), or (even) in a case where he claims I paid you in full?
זאת אומרת כותבין שובר — This proves that we write a receipt Overview רבי אבהו maintains that from our משנה we can prove that כותבין שובר. The מלוה is not required to return the שטר חוב to the לוה in order to receive payment; he can offer him a receipt instead (if he claims that he lost the שט״ח). The proof is from the fact that in our משנה the husband must pay the כתובה based on the testimony of the עדי הינומא, even though he is not receiving the כתובה in return. All the husband can demand is a שובר. The discussion whether כותבין שובר or not, is in a situation where there is a suspicion that the שט״ח exists. If however we know for certain (through עדים) that the שט״ח exists no longer, then it is obvious that the לוה must pay and can only receive a שובר. -----------------------– תוספות anticipates a difficulty with the proof that ר״א brings from our משנה: אף על גב דהכא לא אפשר – Even though that here it is impossible any other way, for there are times when the husband has no choice but to accept a receipt. תוספות explains why this is so: דאיכא למיחש דלמא תשרוף כתובתה בעדים והדרא וגביא בעדי הינומא – for there is a concern that perhaps she will burn her כתובה in the presence of witnesses and she will return to her husband and collect the כתובה with עדי הינומא – כדאמרינן בסמוך ודלמא הדרא ומפקא בעדי הינומא וגביא – As the ברייתא will shortly state ; that if she burns her כתובה בפני עדים, she can collect with עדי הינומא. In addition the גמרא states that after she collected once with the עדי הינומא, perhaps she will produce עדי הינומא again and collect a second time. The husband will not be able to claim פרעתי (the second time) – למאן דאמר הטוען אחר מעשה בית דין לא אמר כלום ועל כן זקוק הוא לשובר – according to the one who maintains that he who counterclaims a מעשה בי״ד has said nothing; his claim is denied and therefore since she can always burn her כתובה he is dependent on a שובר ; there is no other way to protect himself. תוספות asks that since by כתובה there are circumstances in which the woman can force him to accept a שובר, therefore in general by a כתובה we allow her to collect by merely writing a שובר, without returning the כתובה. However by loans in general where the מלוה cannot collect unless he produces the שטר, for otherwise, the לוה can claim פרעתי, there the דין can be that אין כותבין שובר and the מלוה must return the שטר in order to collect his debt. There is no proof from the fact that כותבין שובר by a כתובה, that the דין should also be כותבין שובר by a מלוה. תוספות responds that indeed there is proof from a כתובה to a מלוה: מכל מקום דייק שפיר דבעלמא נמי כותבין שובר – nonetheless; despite the issue just raised, the גמרא correctly infers from this דין of כתובה that in general, by loans also, we can write a שובר, and the מלוה is not obligated to return the שטר – דאי אין כותבין בעלמא למה יפרע כאן – For if in general, by loans, we cannot write a receipt; but rather the מלוה is required to return the שטר in order to protect the rights of the לוה, then why should the husband pay the כתובה here in our case, without receiving the כתובה in return – כיון שיכול לבא לידי הפסד במה שהכתובה בידה כדפירשנו – since the husband can incur a loss from the fact that the כתובה is in her possession as we explained (in the previous תוספות) that if the woman has no עדי הינומא or it is במקום שאין מכירין שהיא אשתו, the husband loses by the fact that the כתובה is בידה. S UMMARY Even though the woman can occasionally force the husband to accept a receipt instead of the כתובה, nonetheless she should not be entitled to have him pay, without her returning the כתובה, unless we maintain that כותבין שובר. T HINKING IT OVER Why, in the קושיא, did תוספות assume that we cannot prove from our משנה that כותבין שובר (since she can burn the כתובה); and in the answer תוספות assumes that we can infer from our משנה that כותבין שובר (since the husband may incur a loss)? What changed from the קושיא to the תירוץ?! Review There is a dispute between רבי אבהו and רב פפא concerning the right of the מלוה to offer the לוה a receipt in lieu of returning the שטר חוב. ר״א maintains, that since the לוה admits that he owes the מלוה money, he must repay him, even though the מלוה claims that he cannot return the שט״ח. The לוה can only demand that he be given a receipt to prove that he paid the loan. רב פפא is of the opinion that the לוה is not required to repay the loan, until the מלוה returns the שטר. The לוה can claim that a receipt is not sufficient, for perhaps, the לוה will lose the receipt and the מלוה will produce the שטר and thereby fraudulently collect the payment a second time. ר״א views the rights of the מלוה paramount (since the לוה admits to owing the money), therefore כותבין שובר, while רב פפא is of the opinion that the rights of the לוה must be guaranteed (the מלוה must either produce the שטר or bring עדים that it was burnt, etc.) and therefore אין כותבין שובר. Our משנה states that a woman can collect her כתובה based on the עדי הינומא. She is not required to produce the כתובה. The גמרא concluded that if we assume that the משנה is discussing places where the custom is to write a כתובה, then this presents a complication for ר״פ and proof for ר״א. The fact that the husband is required to pay without receiving the כתובה in return, supports the view of ר״א, that a שובר is sufficient to placate the payer; the original loan document need not be returned. תוספות has two general difficulties with this proof from our משנה in כתובות, regarding the case of a loan. One difficulty is dealt with in the תוספות ד״ה וליחוש; the other in תוספות ד״ה זאת. Both questions are according to the מ״ד that הטוען אחר מעשה בי״ד לא אמר כלום; that the husband cannot claim פרעתי if she demands her כתובה, unless he has either the כתובה or a שובר to prove that he already paid her. Otherwise the woman can always claim that her כתובה was not paid up yet. This makes a loan very different from a כתובה. By a loan the מלוה must have the שטר in his possession in order to make a claim; for otherwise the לוה can claim פרעתי. However a woman does not require a כתובה in order to claim her payments, for the husband cannot claim פרעתי. The first question argues that we cannot prove anything from our משנה. It is possible that by a loan the ruling is that אין כותבין שובר; the מלוה cannot collect unless he returns the שט״ח to the לוה. The לוה has a valid claim: if the שטר is not returned and I lose the receipt, I may have to repay the loan again. If however the שט״ח is returned to the לוה, he will have nothing to be concerned of in the future, for even if the מלוה claims that he was not paid, the לוה will not have to pay him, since the מלוה has no שטר. However by a כתובה, there is seemingly no difference to the husband whether she returns the כתובה or writes him a שובר. Either way he will need to guard them. For if he loses the כתובה or the שובר the woman can claim that she was never paid. Therefore since there is no difference to the husband, the rule is that she need not produce the כתובה. תוספות answers that there is a difference to the husband whether or not she returns the כתובה. The difference is in a situation where the woman cannot find עדי הינומא, or in a place where no one knows that they were once married. In these situations if she will have returned the כתובה (even if the husband loses it), she cannot claim that בתולה נשאתני for she has no עדי הינומא. In the latter case she cannot claim anything at all for the husband has a מגו that ‘you are not my wife’. If however she merely wrote him a שובר and he lost it, then she will be able to claim her כתובה a second time based on the כתובה in her possession. Therefore; since the husband stands to lose by her retaining the כתובה, and nevertheless we maintain that she collects without returning the כתובה, this is ample proof that כותבין שובר. The second question of תוספות is that there is another difference between כתובה and a loan. In the case of כתובה, the wife can force the husband to accept a receipt (and not the כתובה). She has the ability to burn the כתובה in the presence of עדים (before she was paid anything). She then comes to בי״ד with the עדי הינומא and collects. The husband cannot demand the כתובה because she has עדים that the כתובה is burnt. He is forced to be satisfied with a שובר. The husband will be forced to guard this שובר, since his wife can always come back and demand payment. תוספות seems to be arguing that since the woman has the power to make him accept a שובר (if she burns the כתובה), then this power should be applied in all cases even if she has no עדים that she burnt the כתובה. However by a loan the מלוה cannot afford to burn the שטר, for if he were to do so the לוה can claim פרעתי. There is no way in which the מלוה can ‘force’ the לוה to accept a שובר, therefore the דין is that אין כותבין שובר. There is no proof from כתובה. תוספות answers, that even though the woman can force the husband to accept a שובר if she burns the כתובה, nevertheless as long as the כתובה was not burnt, she should be obligated to return it to him upon payment, since it is possible that he may suffer a loss if it remains in her possession (as explained in the answer to question one). The fact she may collect without returning the כתובה indicates that כותבין שובר
כותבין שובר — We write a receipt O VERVIEW The גמרא explains that the reason the woman can collect without returning the כתובה is because we follow the opinion that כותבין שובר. The creditor has the right to collect, even if he does not produce the שטר as long as he provides the debtor with a receipt. תוספות will question the validity of applying this ruling to a כתובה (as it is applied by a loan). -----------– תוספות anticipates a difficulty: אף על גב דבפרק גט פשוט (בבא בתרא קעא, ב ושם) מפרש טעמא – Even though that in פרק גט פשוט the גמרא explains the reason – דמאן דאמר כותבין שובר משום דעבד לוה לאיש מלוה – of the one who maintains that we write a receipt. The reason is because there is a verse which reads that ‘the borrower is a slave to the person who lends’; indicating that we favor the lender over the borrower, in various instances. This includes this situation, in which the מלוה is not required to produce the שטר, but may rather write a receipt to the לוה. The question is, if the reason for כותבין שובר is because עבד לוה לאיש מלוה, then by a כתובה, where the husband is not a לוה, nor is the wife a מלוה, the rule of כותבין שובר should not apply. Why then can she collect without producing the כתובה?! תוספות responds that עבד לוה לאיש מלוה – לאו דוקא לוה אלא הוא הדין בכל חוב כמו כתובה דהכא – does not specifically refer to a לוה, that only an actual לוה is considered an עבד, and must acquiesce to the claim of the מלוה but rather this ruling applies to all debts that are owed. The one owing the money, for whatever reason, is treated as the עבד just as the case here of a כתובה – ושטרי מקח דאמר התם דכותבין שובר: And notes of sale, regarding which the גמרא states there that we write a שובר in the case of a שטר מקח. We can infer from that גמרא that the rule of כותבין שובר applies to all situations not only by loans, where the מלוה did a favor to the לוה, by lending him the money. Therefore it applies to כתובה here as well. S UMMARY The rule of כותבין שובר applies to all debtors, regardless if there was a loan or not. T HINKING IT OVER 1. In the previous two תוספות (ד״ה וליחוש וד״ה זאת), it seemed that כותבין שובר is more appropriate by a כתובה than by a loan. In this תוספות it seems that כותבין שובר is more appropriate by a loan than by a כתובה. How can this seemingly apparent contradiction be resolved? 2. In general, how can we maintain that אין כותבין שובר? This implies that even if the לוה admits that he owes the money, nevertheless if the מלוה does not produce the שטר, the לוה does not have to pay (even if the מלוה offers to write a receipt). This does not seem to be justified! How can a future doubtful concern (that the לוה may lose the שובר and the מלוה will produce the ‘lost’ שטר) outweigh a definite obligation in the present!?
מאי איבדה איבדה באור — What is meant by ‘she lost it’? She lost it in a fire. O VERVIEW The גמרא says that according to רב פפא who maintains that אין כותבין שובר, the reason that the husband must pay without receiving the כתובה in return, is because it is a מקום שאין כותבין כתובה and the כתובה which the husband wrote especially for her, was burnt. ---------------– תוספות asks a question: ואם תאמר אם כן אפילו במקום שכותבין הוה ליה לאוקמי – And if you will say, if this is so; if the כתובה was burnt, the גמרא could have established that the ברייתא was even discussing a place where they write כתובות – ומאי דוחקיה לאוקמי במקום שאין כותבין – And what forced the גמרא to establish that the ברייתא is only discussing a place where they do not write כתובות. תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו תם דבמקום שכותבין ונשרפה איכא למיחש שכתב לה כתובה אחרת – And the ר״ת says that it is necessary to maintain that we are discussing a מקום שאין כותבין כתובה, for in a place where כתובות are written, then even if it was burnt, there is the concern that he wrote her another כתובה; the reason for this concern is – דאסור להשהותה בלא כתובה– For it is forbidden to have the woman linger and be married without a כתובה. Therefore since there is a strong possibility that he renewed the כתובה, the husband should not be required to pay if he claims that he wrote a new כתובה and wants it returned before he pays. However if it is במקום שאין כותבין כתובה, and we know that the כתובה was burnt, then there is no concern. The husband cannot claim that he wrote a new כתובה, since this is a מקום שאין כותבין כתובה. תוספות offers another option: מיהו הוה מצי לאוקמה במקום שכותבין – However, the גמרא could have established that we are discussing a place where כתובות are written. The difficulty mentioned above can be resolved if we establish – ונשרפה אחר הגירושין דליכא למיחש שמא כתב לה אחרת – that the כתובה was burnt after the divorce; in which case there is no concern that perhaps he wrote another כתובה for her ; there is no halachic need for a כתובה, and he certainly is not interested in helping her after the divorce. If there is no other כתובה, then it is understood that he is required to pay, since she has עדים that the כתובה was burnt after the גירושין. תוספות explains why indeed the גמרא did not offer this solution: אלא שנראה לו דוחק: However, it seemed to the גמרא that this is an unlikely solution. It is not realistic to narrow the focus of the ברייתא that it is (only) discussing a case where the כתובה was burnt after the divorce. The גמרא would rather be discussing a case where it was burnt (even) during the marriage, even if it means that we will be discussing a מקום שאין כותבין כתובה. S UMMARY In a מקום שכותבין כתובה, even if the woman has עדים that her כתובה was burnt, nevertheless the husband is believed if he claims that he rewrote the כתובה. He does not have to pay her unless she returns the new כתובה, according to the מ״ד that אין כותבין שובר (unless she has עדים that the original כתובה was burnt after the divorce). However במקום שאין כותבין כתובה, then he is not believed that he rewrote the כתובה and is obligated to pay her, even if she does not return the כתובה. T HINKING IT OVER What is the דין in a מקום שאין כותבין כתובה, if the husband claims that he wrote her a כתובה, according to the מ״ד that אין כותבין שובר. Is the husband believed that he wrote a כתובה, and not obligated to pay unless she returns it to him, or is the husband not believed?
ותו איבדה למה לי — And furthermore why state ‘she lost it’ O VERVIEW The ברייתא states: ׳איבדה כתובתה הטמינה כתובתה נשרפה כתובתה׳, in all these cases she collects her כתובה with עדים. According to רב פפא we interpreted איבדה to mean נשרפה. The גמרא asked several questions on this assumption. The first was ׳היינו נשרפה׳ and the third was ׳ותו איבדה למה לי׳. Our תוספות differentiates between these two seemingly identical questions. -----------------– תוספות anticipates a question: אף על גב דלכאורה היינו פירכא קמייתא דפריך היינו נשרפה – Even though that seemingly this question of ׳איבדה למה לי׳ is the same as the first question that the גמרא asked: that איבדה is the same as נשרפה. What is the difference between the first question ׳היינו נשרפה׳ and this question ׳ותו איבדה למה לי׳, they seem to be the exact same question. Both questions are seemingly asking that if איבדה means נשרפה, then why does it say both איבדה and נשרפה. תוספות responds: יש ליישב דהכי קאמר ותו אפילו אם נאמר דנשרפה הוי פירושא דנאבדה – It can be answered, that this is what the גמרא is asking in the last question, and furthermore; meaning even if we assume that ׳נשרפה׳ is the interpretation of ׳נאבדה׳; this may seem to answer the first question, that it is necessary to state נשרפה in order to explain what was meant by נאבדה. Nonetheless even if we agree that the first question is answered by assuming that with נשרפה that תנא is explaining what he meant byנאבדה – מכל מקום תקשי איבדה למה לי: Nevertheless it is still difficult why we need to say איבדה, and then explain that it means נשרפה, when the תנא could have said just נשרפה and not mentioned נאבדה at all. S UMMARY The first question היינו נשרפה may be answered that נשרפה is explaining נאבדה, but the last question is, merely say נשרפה so there will be no need to explain נאבדה. T HINKING IT OVER How can תוספות even assume that נשרפה explains נאבדה, if the case of הטמינה separates them?!
איתנוסי הוא דאיתניסו — They accidentally encountered a mishap O VERVIEW The גמרא asked why it is necessary to pass an uncovered barrel in front of the אלמנה. The גמרא answered that we are concerned that eventually (by the time she is divorced or widowed again from this husband), the אלמנה may seize two hundred זוז (the כתובה of a בתולה) from her husband’s estate, and claim that she was a בתולה. She will explain that there was no חבית סתומה passed before her, since איתנוסי הוא דאיתניסו; it was due to unforeseen circumstances. If this will occur she will be believed and the husband will suffer a loss. Therefore a חבית פתוחה is passed before her, so there will be testimony that she is an אלמנה. Our תוספות explores this future concern that she may be תופס מאתיים (if no חבית פתוחה is passed before her). It is a concern, according to תוספות, only in a limited situation. ------------------- נראה דמיירי כגון שיש לה מגו דאי בעי אמרה אין בידי כלום – It seems that the גמרא is discussing a future case, where the concern is in a situation where for instance she has a מגו that she could have claimed, ‘I possess nothing’; I did not take any money at all. There is no proof that she seized her כתובה payment. It is only in that case that there is a concern, and therefore the need to pass before her an open barrel. The husband claims that she took מאתיים, even though since she was an אלמנה and is only owed מאה. She admits to taking מאתיים, but claims that she was a בתולה. She explains that the reason there was no חבית is because איתנוסי. We would have to believe her that she was a בתולה (and allow her to keep the מאתיים), since she could have claimed, ‘I took nothing and you owe me my כתובה’ (at least מאה). In order to prevent this fraud, we pass a חבית פתוחה before her so there will be witnesses that she is an אלמנה. – דאי לאו הכי אמאי מהימנא – for if it is not like this; but we are concerned about any situation, even where we know that she has the כתובה money in her possession, then there is no reason to pass the חבית פתוחה, for why should she be believed that she was a בתולה. There was no sealed barrel passed before her. It is assumed that she is a בעולה. It is up to her to prove that איתנוסי הוא דאיתניסו; seizing the money gives her no additional right. תוספות has a question: ואם תאמר בחילוק קליות דאמר לקמן דארמלתא ליה לה כיסני – And if you will say, that the גמרא states later concerning the distribution of dried grains; that by a widow, קליות are not distributed; that is the sign the she is an אלמנה and not a בתולה. The question is – אמאי לא חיישינן דלמא תפסא כולי כדאמר הכא – Why are we not concerned that perhaps she will seize, etc. two hundred זוזים as the גמרא is concerned here that she will claim they did not pass the barrel because of an אונס. In the places where קליות is the proof of a בתולה, we should also institute that by an אלמנה something else of note should be done to indicate that she is an אלמנה. Otherwise she may be תופס מאתיים זוז, and she will claim that the reason there was no קליות is because איתנוסי וכו׳. תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו תם דדוקא בדבר שיש טורח כגון חבית דהכא יכולה לומר דאיתניסו – And the ר״ת says that the claim of אתנוסי is specifically limited to something which requires effort to do, for instance the passing of the sealed barrel mentioned here ; bringing and passing sealed barrels of wine before the כלה requires an effort. Therefore it is only in these cases, that she can claim איתניסו; it was too difficult for them to arrange to have the barrels brought, etc. – אבל קליות ושאר דברים שהם קלים לעשות לא: However, concerning קליות or other customs, which are easy to accomplish, then she is not believed to claim איתניסו, even if she was תופס. It is too far fetched to imagine that they could not distribute קליות, etc. Therefore since she cannot claim איתנוסי, even if she were to grab and have a מיגו, she would not be believed, for it is (like) a מגו במקום עדים. S UMMARY A woman who admits that she seized מאתיים is believed to claim בתולה נשאתני, even if a חבית סתומה was not passed before her. She has a מגו of אין בידי כלום, and can excuse the lack of חבית by claiming איתנוסי. [She cannot excuse however the lack of easily realized customs, even with a מגו.] When it was known that she seized money, however, then the claim of איתנוסי is ineffective. T HINKING IT OVER Why does the woman need to claim איתניסו in order to explain the lack of חבית, she can simply claim there was a חבית, but no one remembers?!
