1)

(a)The Tana of our Mishnah states that a woman may claim her Kesubah with her Get alone. We initially think - that she claims to have lost her Kesubah.

(b)Her husband is not believed to counter that he already paid and that she returned the Kesubah and he tore it up - because Kesubah is a Ma'aseh Beis Din, and one is not believed to deny Ma'aseh Beis-Din without a good proof.

(c)Beis-Din prevent her from claiming a second time with her Get - by making a tear in the Get.

2)

(a)If she claims her Kesubah with her Shtar Kesubah (on the basis of having lost her Get) and her husband counters that he already paid, but that he lost his receipt, Beis Din do not uphold her claim. A 'Ba'al-Chov' has a parallel Din to this one - if a creditor claims his debt after the Shemitah-year on the basis of a Pruzbul which he claims, he lost.

(b)A Pruzbul is - a document that every creditor writes before the termination of the Shemitah-year, handing over all his debts to the Beis Din, effectively giving them the ownership of the debt. Consequently, when he eventually claims his debt, he is legally doing so as a Shaliach Beis-Din claiming money that belongs to the Beis-Din, which Beis Din then permit him to keep.

(c)The woman loses her claim - because we are afraid that she already claimed her Kesubah with her Get, which they tore and which she is now hiding, whilst she claims again with her Kesubah; and the creditor loses his claims because we are afraid that he did not have a Pruzbul and that his loan was therefore canceled at the termination of Shemitah.

3)

(a)From the time of the Sakanah and onwards - Raban Shimon ben Gamliel permitted a woman to claim her Kesubah without her Get.

(b)'The time of Sakanah' - refers to the time when the Romans forbade the Jews to fulfill the Mitzvos. Consequently, a woman would destroy her Get as soon as she received it, because she was afraid to be caught with it in her possession.

(c)We try to prove from the Reisha of our Mishnah that 'Kosvin Shover' (one writes a receipt) - because otherwise how can we permit a woman to claim her Kesubah with her Get only? Why are we not afraid that, after her husband's death, and, pretending not to have been divorced, she will produce her Shtar Kesubah, and claim her Kesubah again with it?

(d)Rav initially dispenses with this problem - by establishing the Mishnah in a place where it is customary not to write a Kesubah.

4)

(a)According to Shmuel, the Tana is speaking in a place where it is customary to write a Shtar Kesubah. We do not want to establish that our Tana holds 'Kosvin Shover' - because we rule in Bava Basra like those who hold 'Ein Kosvin Shover' (see Tosfos DH 'Shema Minah').

(b)Those who hold 'Ein Kosvin Shover' - are afraid that the mice will chew the document, leaving the debtor without evidence that he has paid.

5)

(a)To answer why we are not afraid that the woman will later produce her Kesubah against the heirs and claim again, Shmuel explained our Mishnah to Rav Anan like this - if the Tana speaks in a place where it is customary not to write a Shtar Kesubah (like Rav currently contends), then the husband is not believed to say that he wrote one; whereas if he speaks in a place where the custom it to write one, then it also speaks when the woman proved that her husband did not. Either way, no receipt is necessary.

(b)Rav finally retracts and agrees with Shmuel that our Mishnah can speak either way. In his opinion - if she claims her Kesubah with her Get, then she receives the basic Kesubah (Manah or Masayim); whereas if she claims with her Shtar Kesubah, then she receives the Tosefes as well.

(c)When Rav concluded 'Whoever wants to come and ask, let him do so'! - he meant to say that, according to this compromise, there is nothing to be afraid of.

6)

(a)The problem with Rav from the Seifa of our Mishnah, where she produces a Kesubah, claiming that she lost her Get ... , yet the Tana prohibits her from claiming is - why is she not entitled to now claim the Tosefes with her Kesubah?

(b)This does not pose a problem on Shmuel - because the Tana would have established the case in a place where the custom was not to write a Kesubah, and he claims that he wrote one. Consequently, he would not be believed when he claims that she was paid initially with her Get (because he was unable to prove that he had written her a Kesubah), and that they had written him a receipt, which he had now lost.

(c)To answer the Kashya against Rav, Rav Yosef establishes our Mishnah when there are no witnesses that the woman is divorced - in which case, the husband is believed completely with a 'Migo', because he could have countered that his wife was not divorced.

7)

(a)We just established our Mishnah according to Rav, when there are no witnesses that she is divorced. In that case - how does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel in the Seifa, permit a woman to claim without a Get from the time of Sakanah and onwards? If she has neither a Get nor witnesses that she is divorced, how will we know that she is not still married?!

(b)So we establish the entire Mishnah like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel. After stating that the woman cannot claim with her Kesubah alone, the Tana continues - 'Bameh Devarim Amurim, k'she'Ein Sham Edei Gerushin, Aval Yesh Sham ... Gavya Tosefes; v'Ikar, I Mafka Gita, Gavya ... u'Min ha'Sakanah va'Eilech, Af-al-Gav d'Lo Mafka Gita ... '.

(c)When Rav Kahana and Rav Asi asked Rav that, seeing as a divorcee claims her basic Kesubah with her Get, how does a widow claim hers -Rav replied 'With the witnesses of her husband's death.

(d)We are not afraid that ...

1. ... really she is divorced, and that she will later produce her Get, and claim her Kesubah again in a different Beis-Din - because (we currently contend) a widow can only claim her Get if she was living with her husband at the time of his death.

2. ... her husband divorced her just before he died - because if he did, then he has only himself to blame (so to speak) for causing his heirs a loss.

8)

(a)All of the above is fine when we are talking about a widow from the marriage, who was living with her husband. But the only way to get round the same problem in the case of a widow from the betrothal, where they were not living together and where she may have been divorced, is - by writing a receipt, which everyone agrees we do, when there is no other option.

(b)We prove this from the case of the witnesses who testify that her husband died - because, if we did not write a receipt, what is to stop her from producing them a second time in another Beis Din and claiming her Kesubah again?

(c)This also covers - the case of a widow from the marriage, who is permitted to claim her Kesubah, even if her husband died whilst he was overseas, provided she writes the heirs a receipt.

9)

(a)Mar Keshisha Brei d'Rav Chisda asked Rav Ashi from where we know that a widow from the Erusin receives a Kesubah. There is no proof from the Mishnah in the fifth Perek, which specifically states that a widow or a divorcee from the betrothal as well as from the marriage, may claim her entire Kesubah - because that Mishnah may well be speaking when the husband specifically wrote her one ...

(b)... and the Tana is coming to teach us - that she may claim her Kesubah, even though they did not get married (to preclude from the opinion of Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, who holds that the woman only receives the Tosefes if she eventually marries [since that is the whole point of the betrothal]).

(c)The proof from the actual statement, that the Tana is speaking in such a case - is from the word 'Govah es ha'Kol' (incorporating the Tosefes). Now if he had not written her a Kesubah, how would there be any Tosefes?

10)

(a)There no proof for our She'eilah, from the Beraisa, which states 'Mesah, Einah Yorshah, Mes Hu, Govah Kesuvasah', for the same reason as in the previous question, (because the Tana is speaking when he specifically wrote her a Kesubah) ...

(b)... and the Tana is coming to teach us that, even though he feels sufficiently close to her to write her a Kesubah, nevertheless, he will not inherit her, in the event that she dies whilst they are betrothed.

(c)We know that a man does not inherit his Arusah - because the Pasuk from which we learn that a husband inherits his wife is "Ki Im li'She'eiro ... " in Emor, and "She'eiro" by definition means 'wife'.

11)

(a)Rav Nachman asked Rav Huna why, according to Rav (who permits woman to claim the basic Kesubah with her Get), we are not afraid that she will claim her Kesubah in one Beis-Din, and then claim it again in another Beis-Din. The latter could not answer that one tears-up her Get after the first claim - because she needs the Get in order to remarry.

(b)He therefore replied - that Beis-Din make a tear in the Get, and write on it that the tear is not an indication that the Get is Pasul, but that her Kesubah has already been paid.

12)

(a)Our Mishnah permits a woman who has two Gitin and two Kesuvos, to claim with each of the Kesuvos - provided the first Kesubah is dated before the first Get, and the second one, before the second Get.

(b)If she has ...

1. ... two Kesuvos and one Get ...

2. ... one Kesubah and two Gitin or ...

3. ... one Kesubah, a Get and Edei Misah - she may claim one Kesubah.

(c)The reason for these two latter rulings - because, when a man remarries a woman, he does so on the basis of the original Kesubah (unless he specifically writes her a second one, as we learned in the Reisha of the Mishnah).

(d)She will be able to claim two Kesuvos (in the latter case) only - if the Kesubah is dated later than the Get, in which case, it pertains to her second marriage, and with the Get, she will be able to claim her Kesubah from the first marriage.

13)

(a)From the second case in our Mishnah, which does not specify which of the two Kesuvos she claims with, we extrapolate - that she may claim with whichever Kesubah she chooses.

(b)Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel rules that if someone produces two documents on the same debt, he may only claim with the latter one - meaning that he loses the right to claim any property that was sold between the date on the first Shtar and the date on the second one.

(c)We reconcile this with the inference that we just made from our Mishnah with a statement by Rav Papa qualifying Rav Nachman - who says that Rav Nachman concedes that, if the second document adds as little as one date-palm to the first one, both documents are valid, and the recipient (in our case, the woman) has a choice to claim with whichever one he wishes (as we learned in the fourth Perek).