Tosfos DH "Shma Minah Kosvin Shovar"
תוספות ד"ה "שמע מינה כותבין שובר"
(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether or not we indeed rule that a receipt should be written.)
פי' בקונטרס ואנן קי"ל דאין כותבין בבבא בתרא (דף קעא:)
First Opinion: Rashi explains that we hold that a receipt does not have to be written as indicated by the Gemara in Bava Basra (171b).
ואין נראה לר"י דאדרבה התם משמע דקיימא לן דכותבין דקאמר האידנא דכתבינן תברא כו' ומדמסיק הכי סתמא דהש"ס משמע דהכי הלכתא
Question: This appears incorrect to the Ri, as on the contrary, the Gemara there insinuates that we hold that we do write receipts. This is indicated by the Gemara's statement that "nowadays that we do write receipts etc." The fact that the Gemara concludes in this fashion indicates that this is the Halachah.
ונראה לר"י דה"פ ש"מ כותבין שובר ותיקשי למ"ד התם דאין כותבין
Second Opinion: The Ri says that our Gemara is stating that our Mishnah implies that one does write a receipt. This should seemingly be a question on the opinion in Bava Basra (ibid.) which holds that we do not write such receipts.
ומדסיפא דקתני וזה אומר אבד שוברי לא הוה מצי למידק כ"כ
Observation: The Gemara could not have deduced this so accurately from the second part of the Mishnah, where the ex-husband says that he lost his receipt (although this seemingly implies that they wrote receipts).
דדלמא לא הזקיקוהו לפרוע ע"י שובר אלא ההוא לפנים משורת הדין עבד
This is because it is possible that they did not require receipts to be written upon payment, but the woman in this case did more than the letter of the law (and wrote a receipt anyway).
א"נ כל כמה דמצי למידק מרישא מדקדק
Alternatively, (although it would be a good deduction that they used to write receipts) the style of the Gemara is to always deduce from the first part of the Mishnah first whenever possible.
וא"ת השתא דס"ד דאיירי במקום שכותבין כתובה היכי יפרש מתני' דאמאי גובה כתובתה בגט ולא בכתובה
Question: Now that the Gemara thinks that we are talking about a place where a Kesuvah is written (without solely relying on a condition of Beis Din), how can it explain our Mishnah's statement that the Kesuvah can be collected when the woman presents a Get without a Kesuvah?
וי"ל דיפרש כר' יוחנן
Answer: It must be that the Gemara at this point uses the logic of Rebbi Yochanan (that a woman can always collect with a Get even without proof, unless the husband proves that he wrote her a kesuvah, see Ritva).
Tosfos DH "b'Makom she'Kosvin"
תוס' ד"ה "במקום שכותבין"
(SUMMARY: Tosfos clarifies why we do not suspect that he later wrote her a kesuvah, even in a place where the custom is not to write a kesuvah.)
ומתני' כשהביאה ראיה שלא כתב לה
Explanation: Our Mishnah is referring to a case where she brought proof that he did not write her a kesuvah.
וא"ת כיון דבמקום שכותבין הוא ניחוש שמא אח"כ כתב דהא בריש פ"ב לעיל (דף טז:) חיישי' להכי
Question: Tosfos asks that being that the Mishnah is talking about a place where a kesuvah is generally written, why don't we suspect that her proof is invalid as he might have afterward written her a kesuvah? We see that the Gemara indeed harbors such a suspicion earlier (16b).
דמוקמינן הא דקתני בברייתא איבדה כתובתה נשרפה כתובתה כגון דאמרי עדים שנשרפה כתובתה ובמקום שאין כותבין
The Gemara earlier (16b) establishes that the Beraisa's case "if she loses her Kesuvah or her Kesuvah was burnt" is when there were witnesses that the Kesuvah was burnt, and in a place where a Kesuvah is not normally written.
משמע דבמקום שכותבין לא גביא דחיישינן שמא כתב לה אחרת
This implies that in a place where the custom is generally to write a Kesuvah we do not allow her to collect without a Kesuvah, as we suspect that perhaps he did write her a different Kesuvah later.
וי"ל דהתם שכבר כתב לה בשעת נשואין ונשרפה חיישינן ודאי שמא כתב לה אחרת
Answer: Tosfos answers that in the Gemara earlier (16b) where he had already written her a Kesuvah and it was later burnt, we suspect that he must have written her another Kesuvah.
אבל הכא שהביאה ראיה שלא כתב לה בשעת נשואין תו ליכא למיחש שמא כתב לה אח"כ אפי' במקום שכותבין
However, in our Gemara where she brought proof that he never wrote her a Kesuvah when they married, there is no reason to suspect that he later wrote her a Kesuvah even in a place where the custom is to generally write a Kesuvah.
Tosfos DH "Get Goveh"
תוס' ד"ה "גט גובה"
(SUMMARY: Tosfos attempts to clarify Rav's position in light of his statement in Bava Basra (171b).
ומיירי מתני' בין במקום שכותבין בין במקום שאין כותבין
Explanation: According to Rav, the law of our Mishnah is applicable both to a place where the custom is to write a Kesuvah and a place where the custom is not to write a Kesuvah.
קשה לרשב"א כיון דאית ליה לרב בפ' גט פשוט (ב"ב קעא:) דאין כותבין שובר
Question: The Rashba has difficulty with this understanding of Rav. Rav said in Bava Basra (171b) that we do not write receipts.
א"כ הוציאה גט ואין עמו כתובה לא תגבה אפי' מנה ומאתים עד שתחזיר לו הכתובה
Accordingly, if a woman would produce a Get without a Kesuvah she should not even collect the standard one hundred (given to a widow) or two hundred Zuz until she gives him back the actual Kesuvah.
דיכול לבא לידי הפסד במה שנשאר שטר כתובה בידה כשתתאלמן תגבה שנית מנה ומאתים בעידי מיתה הואיל ושטר כתובה בידה
He would otherwise be open to end up losing money if the Kesuvah stays in her hands. This can easily happen if he dies and she becomes a "widow," as she can now produce a Kesuvah and collect again the entire worth of the Kesuvah if witnesses testify that he has died, including the standard one or two hundred Zuz.
דכי קאמר רב כתובה אינה גובה עיקר הנ"מ בגרושה דאית לה גט אבל אלמנה במאי תגבה עיקר אם לא בכתובה
This is because although Rav stated that a Kesuvah can only be used to collect the extra monies stated in the Kesuvah, this is only regarding a divorcee who should have a Get (and a Kesuvah). However, a widow obviously collects the entire Kesuvah by presenting the Kesuvah alone, as what else is she going to collect with? [She never received a Get.]
והם לא ידעו שהיתה גרושה דשנויא דמשנינן לקמן ביושבת תחת בעלה לא קאי
It is very possible that the Beis Din will not know that she was divorced. This is because the Gemara's answer (89b) that a widow can only collect her Kesuvah when she was known to be living with her husband when he died does not remain in the conclusion of the Gemara.
ומיהו אי אמרינן לרב דאפי' אין כתובה בידה גובה עיקר אפי' בעידי מיתה אתי שפיר
Answer: If we say that according to Rav that even if a widow does not have her Kesuvah in her hand she can collect the main part of the Kesuvah as long as there are witnesses that her husband died, the question fall away. [This is because she will be able to collect the main part of the Kesuvah regardless of whether or not she maintains the actual Kesuvah.]
Tosfos DH "Migu" (Starts Bottom of 89a)
תוס' ד"ה "מיגו" (מתחיל בדף פט.)
(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how Rav Yosef's answer doesn't contradict the statement of Rav Hamnuna that a woman is believed to say she is divorced in front of her husband.)
ורבי יוחנן נמי מפרש הכי כדפרישית לעיל
Observation: Rebbi Yochanan will also use Rav Yosef's answer as Tosfos explained earlier (88b, DH "Hotzi'ah").
ואם תאמר והאמר רב המנונא האשה שאמרה לבעלה גירשתני נאמנת
Question: Doesn't Rav Hamnuna say that a woman who tells her husband in front of Beis Din "you divorced me" is believed?
ורבי יוחנן אית ליה דרב המנונא לעיל בפ' שני (דף כב: ושם) ובפרק התקבל (גיטין סד.)
Rebbi Yochanan holds of this statement of Rav Hamnuna earlier (22b) and in Gitin (64a). [Accordingly, how could Rebbi Yochanan say that the husband could have claimed that he never divorced his wife when his wife is claiming "you divorced me?"]
וי"ל דלא מהימנא אלא דווקא היכא דאין תובעת כתובתה אבל תובעת כתובתה לא מהימנא דשמא מחמת חימוד ממון אומרת כן
Answer: She is only believed when she is not claiming her Kesuvah. However, if she is claiming her Kesuvah when she claims "you divorced me" she is not believed, as she is possibly only claiming this out of greed (to collect the money from the Kesuvah).
והכי אמרינן בהאשה שהלכה (יבמות קיז. ושם) מת בעלי והתירוני לינשא מתירין אותה לינשא ונותנין לה כתובתה
We use similar logic in Yevamos (117a). The Gemara there states that if a woman comes to Beis Din claiming that her husband died and that she would like to be permitted to remarry, we permit her to remarry and give her a Kesuvah as well. [As she did not even mention her Kesuvah in her claim, it is clear that this is the purpose of her claim, and she is believed to be entitled to collect her Kesuvah as well.]
תנו לי כתובתי אף לינשא אין מתירין אותה דאדעתא דכתובה אתאי
However, the Gemara (ibid.) states that if she comes to Beis Din claiming that she wants her Kesuvah and she also wants to remarry, we do not even permit her to remarry. This is because her claim is based on receiving the money of her Kesuvah (indicating that there is a possibility she may be lying out of greed).
Tosfos DH "Yachol Lomar"
תוס' ד"ה "יכול לומר"
(SUMMARY: Tosfos defends the "Migu" mentioned in our Gemara.)
ואם תאמר ומאי מיגו הוא זה דאם יאמר לא גירשתיך יתחייב בשאר וכסות ועכשיו דאמר פרעתי פוטר עצמו
Question: What kind of Migu is this? If he would indeed say that he did not divorce her, he would be obligated to pay her for support and clothing. Now that he claims that he paid the Kesuvah he does not have to do that, which is a good reason why he would not claim that he divorced her. [This should take away the claim of "Migu."]
ויש לומר דכשאמר לא גירשתיך נמי פטור גם משאר וכסות דדמו לטענו חטין והודה לו בשעורים דקי"ל דפטור (שבועות דף לח:)
Answer: This assumption is incorrect. Even if he would claim he did not divorce her he would not be obligated to pay for her support and clothing. This is akin to a case where the plaintiff says the defendant owes him wheat, and the defendant says that he owes barley. We rule like the opinion in the Gemara in Shevuos (38b) that the defendant is exempt from paying in such a case, as the plaintiff admits that the defendant does not owe him the monies that he claims to owe (see Tosfos ha'Rosh). [Similarly, if a woman claims to be divorced and therefore she is owed a Kesuvah he will never be obligated to pay for support and clothing due to marriage, even if he says she is still married to him.]
וא"ת בפ' בתרא (לקמן קז:) דאמרי' האשה שהלכה היא ובעלה למדינת הים ובאה ואמרה כו' גירשני בעלי מתפרנסת והולכת עד כדי כתובתה
Question: The Gemara later (107b) asks that a woman who went with her husband overseas and upon return claims her husband divorced her is allowed to support herself from her ex-husband's estate up until the value of her Kesuvah. [This is because she is either entitled to support because she is married to him, or because she got divorced and is therefore entitled to the value of her Kesuvah.]
ואמאי ניחוש שמא בעלה היה אומר לא גירשתיך והוי טענו חטין והודה לו בשעורין ופטור
If our previous answer was correct, why don't we suspect that her husband will claim that he did not divorce her, resulting in his not having to pay her support as well?
ויש לחלק דשמא אם היה בא בעלה היה מודה לדבריה
Answer: We can differentiate that in the case of the Gemara later (ibid.) it is possible that the husband will admit to her that he divorced her. [Accordingly, we allow the woman to eat from her ex-husband's estate as long as her husband does not make such a claim.]
Tosfos DH "l'Didach"
תוס' ד"ה "לדידך"
(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that this could have been a question on Shmuel as well.)
לשמואל נמי הוה מצי לאקשויי ובמקום שאין כותבין כתובה
Observation: The Gemara could have also asked this question according to Shmuel regarding a place where the custom is not to write a Kesuvah.
Tosfos DH "Meisah Ainah Yorshah"
תוס' ד"ה "מתה אינה יורשה"
(SUMMARY: Tosfos clarifies why the Beraisa's statement that "if he dies she collects her Kesuvah" is unnecessary.)
ואם תאמר והא מת הוא גובה כתובתה נמי איצטריכא ליה דמינה דייקינן בפרק נערה (לעיל נג.) דארוסה לא קבר לה
Question: How can the Gemara state that "if he dies she collects her Kesuvah" is not a statement that provides us with a novel teaching and is therefore unnecessary? The Gemara earlier (53a) deduces from this statement of the Beraisa that a person does not have to bury his deceased fiancee!
ויש לומר דהוי מצי למיתני מתה אינו קוברה ולשון גובה כתובתה לא איצטריכא ליה
Answer: If this was the novel teaching that the Beraisa was directly communicating, it should have merely stated that "if she dies he does not have to bury her." Our Gemara is stating that the terminology that "if he dies she collects her Kesuvah" is unnecessary, as these particular words do not teach us anything new.