Inference: Here it connotes that "you are obligated to give to him" is not an absolute ruling, only "go give to him." Also Bava Kama (69a) connotes like this.

Question - Citation (Sanhedrin 6b): What is a final verdict? "Ploni, you are Chayav. Almoni, you are vindicated."

Answer: There, it is called a final verdict regarding that [afterwards] one may not suggest compromise, because he knows how the verdict leans.

Question: If so (the Chayav admits), why did R. Yochanan mention a Henpek?

Answer: He mentioned it for the inference, that if it does not have today's date, even if a Henpek is written in it, so surely he borrowed...

[Even so,] he does not return it, for we are concerned for scheming, or [he wants to save] the scribe's fee.

Explanation: He is not believed to say "I paid."

Explanation (cont.): We call "Ma'aseh Beis Din" anything that he is obligated, even if he did not write, e.g. 100 or 200 [of a Kesuvah], and feeding his widow and girls after his death.

Question: Why do we write a Kesuvah? Even without a Kesuvah, he is not believed to say "I paid"!

Answer: We write due to Tosefes. However, she collects 100 or 200 without a Kesuvah document.

Assertion: Regarding Tosefes, it seems that even if she has witnesses that he stipulated (obligated himself) to her, he is believed to say "I paid."

Suggestion: We can bring a proof from Shabtai's daughter-in-law. He would have been believed to say "I paid", if not that he was established as a liar!

Rejection: Shabtai was a Arev (guarantor). However, perhaps a husband would not be believed.

Suggestion: We can bring a proof from what was taught above (7b) "if he found a Kesuvah, he does not return it;

This connotes that he does not return it due to Tosefes, which he would have been believed to say "I paid"!

Rejection: [We can say that he does not return it, because] also regarding 100 or 200 he causes a loss [to the husband. Without a Kesuvah,] he is believed to say "I paid 100", through a Migo that if he wanted, he could have said "I married you when you were a widow", if she does not have witnesses of Hinuma (a veil that only Besulos wore at the Chupah);

Or, if she does not have witnesses of Kidushin, he is believed to say "I paid", Migo that if he wanted, he could have said "you are not (i.e. never were) my wife."

Question - Citation (Kesuvos 96a - R. Yochanan): If [the widow] said "[the orphans] did not give to me food", and the orphans say "we gave", who must bring a proof?

(Why was he unsure?) Here he says that [one who claims that he paid Ma'aseh Beis Din,] he is not believed at all!

Answer: There we discuss food for the past (there is a Chazakah that they did not delay (Ritva). Since she did not claim until now, this shows that they paid (Tosfos ha'Rosh)), but not for the future.

Explanation: This is not only in a place where they do not write a Kesuvah, or in a place where they write, and there are witnesses that her Kesuvah was burned, that he is not believed to say "I paid" if she has witnesses of divorce;

Rather, even in a place where they write a Kesuvah, and she does not show a Kesuvah, he is not believed to say "I paid", even if she admits that the Kesuvah is in her hand, and also the Get is in her hand, she collects with witnesses of the Get alone.

Implied question: He loses through the Kesuvah document remaining in her hand, for if she will return the Kesuvah, he will write a receipt [and demand that she sign it], so she will not collect a second time;

Note: Zera Yitzchak explains that the custom was to tear the Kesuvah and dispose of it, lest a creditor get it [and collect with it]. Therefore, he writes a receipt.

Even if he would lose his receipt, he can say "I paid 100", Migo that if he wanted, he could have said "I married you when you were a widow", if she does not have witnesses of Hinuma, or "I paid everything", Migo that he could have said "you are not my wife" if she does not have witnesses of Kidushin.

However, now that the Kesuvah is in her hand, she can collect a second time 200 if he will lose his receipt, for it says in her Kesuvah "this Besulah"!

Answer: In any case, she collects through witnesses of divorce alone, without returning her Kesuvah and Get;

This is because R. Yochanan holds in Bava Basra (171b) that we [force a borrower to pay when he admits that he owes, even if the lender does not return the document, and] we write a receipt.

Explanation: According to R. Yochanan, our Mishnah means as follows. If she showed a Get, or even witnesses of the Get, and even though she admits that the Kesuvah and Get are in her hand, she collects through witnesses of the Get, for we write a receipt;

If she showed a Kesuvah and she does not have a Get, i.e. witnesses of the Get, and she says "I lost my Get", for the witnesses of the Get went away, and he says "I paid, and I lost my receipt that they made for me lest you collect a second time", he is believed through a Migo. If he wanted, he could have said "I did not divorce you."

Question: If he said "I did not divorce you", he would be obligated to her She'er, Kesus v'Onah (food, clothing and regular marital relations)!

Answer: If one claimed wheat, and the defendant admitted that he owes barley, he is exempt even from barley, like it says in Bava Kama (35b. Since the claimant did not claim it, this is like admission that he does not owe. Here, her claim of divorce is admission that he does not owe to her She'er, Kesus v'Onah.)

Implied question: A Beraisa (Kesuvos 107b) says that if she says "my husband divorced me", she is fed up to the amount of her Kesuvah! (What is the reason? She admits that she is not fed!)

Answer: There, if her husband were there, perhaps he would agree to her words. However, if he says "I did not divorce you", he is exempt even from food.

Question: How can he say "I did not divorce you"? She is believed, for Rav Hamnuna taught that if a woman said to her husband "you divorced me", she is believed!

Answer: If she claims her Kesuvah, or there are quarrels between him and her, she is not believed;

Source: We find that one who says that her husband died [and asks permission to remarry] is believed, but in such cases (she claims her Kesuvah, or there were quarrels between them), she is not believed (Yevamos 116, 117a).

Distinction: From the time of danger [when the kingdom decreed against Mitzvos] and onwards, when she is afraid to bring witnesses of the Get, she collects, even though he has a Migo (he could say that he did not divorce her).

Implied question - Citation (Kesuvos 89b) Question: If there are no witnesses of divorce, with what does she collect? He should be believed through a Migo!

Answer: That is only according to Rav, who argues with R. Yochanan, who says here that his words have no effect;

However, R. Yochanan holds that she has greater rights before the time of danger, that he is not believed to say "I paid." Also after the time of danger, we should enhance her rights so that his Migo does not help;

Our entire Mishnah is even in a place where they write a Kesuvah.

Support: Also Abaye concludes like R. Yochanan, and establishes our Mishnah even in a place where they write a Kesuvah.

Question: In Bava Basra (171b), Abaye said "if this one lost his receipt, will this one (the lender) eat (collect again) and rejoice?

Inference: He holds that we do not write a receipt;

If so, if she showed a Get and there is no Kesuvah with it, why does she collect, since he loses through the Kesuvah remaining in her hand, like I explained?

He should not [need to] pay until she takes out the Kesuvah, and they tear it!

Answer: Abaye accepted Rava's words, that the borrower is a slave to the lender.

Implied question - Citation (Sotah 7b - Mishnah): If she said "I became Tamei (I was Mezanah)", she is Shover her Kesuvah;

The Gemara asks that this shows that we write a receipt. Abaye [rejected this, and] said "the Mishnah says that she tears it." (Why did Abaye say so, if he accepted Rava's words, that we write a receipt?)

Answer: This is a mere Dichuy. I.e. you cannot infer from here.

Support: Also Rava, who holds that we write a receipt, rejected [the proof] there, and said that [the Mishnah discusses] a place where they do not write a Kesuvah.

Assertion: Shmuel, who holds that we do not write a receipt, and establishes the Mishnah in Kesuvos (89a) to discuss a place where they do not write a Kesuvah, can hold like R. Yochanan, that [one who claims that he paid Ma'aseh Beis Din] his words have no effect;

Implied question: One who showed her Get, i.e. witnesses of the Get, [why does she collect?] He loses through the Get remaining in her hand! If it were not in her hand, [if she came to collect] another time, if he loses his receipt, he could say "I did not divorce you", if she does not have witnesses of the Get!

Answer: In any case [she need not return the Get, for] she can say [I need it, for] I want to remarry with it;

He holds that we do not write in it "this Get, we tore it", like Abaye says below;

This is like when there is no solution; [all agree that] we write a receipt, like it says in Kesuvos (89b).

Explanation: [If she shows] a Kesuvah, and there is no Get with it, for it occurred that he wrote [a Kesuvah] to her - "there is no Get with it" refers to witnesses of the Get, he does not pay. He is believed to say "I paid", Migo [he could have said] "I did not divorce you."

From the time of danger and onwards, she collects even without witnesses of the Get, like I explained according to R. Yochanan;

Explanation: There, Rav establishes the Mishnah both in a place where they write a Kesuvah, and in a place where they do not write a Kesuvah;

She collects 100 or 200 through the Get document, and we tear it, lest she collect with it again, and we write on it "this Get, we tore it..." He argues with Abaye below.

She collects Tosefes only through a Kesuvah [document] with witnesses of the Get, so he will have no Migo "I did not divorce you";

He argues also with R. Yochanan, who said "his words have no effect", and she collects with witnesses of the Get alone.

Question: Is it normal to find a pearl under pottery?!

Answer (R. Tam): In the sea floor, there are wide rocks that look like earthenware, and underneath are found pearls.

Support: It says in Bava Kama (91a) "you submerged in mighty water, and brought up earthenware."

Question: A widow from Nisu'in, in a place where they do not write a Kesuvah, he can ask with what she collects, if we do not say that [one who claims that he paid Ma'aseh Beis Din] his words have no effect!

We cannot prove from Eirusin [that his words have no effect, for it is not clear] that she has a Kesuvah! [Rather,] we should ask from [a widow from] Nisu'in, in a place where they do not write!

Answer: In a place where they do not write, it is fine that he is not believed to say "I paid" [even if he is believed to say so about other Ma'aseh Beis Din], since they did not enact a [written] Kesuvah there;

However, in a place where they write, granted, if they enacted [a written] Kesuvah only for Tosefes, but he is not believed about 100 or 200 to say "I paid", therefore, from Eirusin, that she has no Tosefes, they did not enact Kesuvah;

However, if even for 100 or 200 they enacted to write a Kesuvah, for he is believed to say "I paid", also from Eirusin he should be believed to say "I paid", and they should enact to write a Kesuvah!

Implied question: Why can't we resolve from the Beraisa in Bava Basra (145a) "one who is Mekadesh a woman - a Besulah collects 200..."?

Answer: We can reject that also there is when he wrote to her. We need the Seifa, which teaches "in a place where the custom is to return Kidushin [money, we return it...]"

Observation: In any case, it is true that an Arusah has a Kesuvah, even if he did not write to her, like is proven in Kidushin (65a);

Citation (65a): She says "you were Mekadesh me", and he says "I was not Mekadesh you", he is permitted to her relatives;

Citation (cont. - Rav): If he gave a Get by himself, we force him to give to her a Kesuvah.

Inference: There, you are forced to say that he did not write to her. If he wrote to her, how could he say "I was not Mekadesh you"? It is not normal to write a Kesuvah before Kidushin! It is proven like this in Kesuvos (44a).

Explanation #1: Here, the Gemara wanted to bring a proof only from a Beraisa or Mishnah, but not from teachings of Amora'im.

Explanation #2: We ask that a widow from Eirusin should not collect through witnesses of death, for we should claim [for the orphans] that he paid her.

However, a divorcee, even from Eirusin, obviously she has a Kesuvah. She collects through the Get document, just like a divorce from Nisu'in, in a place where they do not write;

They tear the Get and write on it "this Get..."

In the conclusion that Abaye holds like R. Yochanan, one who claims [that he paid Ma'aseh Beis Din...] is not believed at all, even a widow from Eirusin has a Kesuvah.