Commentary for Ketubot 9:13

הכותב לאשתו דין ודברים אין לי בנכסיך – while she still is betrothed, he (i.e., the future husband) writes her: “When you marry me, I have [no] claims whatsoever on your property,” even though they were not acquired from him , she an sell them and give them and her sale is valid , for an inheritance that comes to a person of from another place, a man may make a condition upon her that she will not inherit it, and if they acquired I from her, even after she has married, her sale is valid, but he consumes the usufruct, and if she dies, he inherits her, for that is the implication of: “I have no claims on your property,” but their usufruct, I have a claim and as long as they are your property while you are alive, I have no claim on them – but after death, I have a claim on them.

Introduction This mishnah discusses a husband’s renunciation of the rights to his wife’s property.

רבי יהודה אומר לעולם הוא אוכל פירי פירות – In the Gemara (Tractate Ketubot 83b), it explains what is usufruct and what is usufruct of the usufruct (i.e., produce vs. yield of the produce)? If she brought in [to the marriage] land and it produced fruit/usufruct, these are usufruct. If he sold these fruits/usufruct and purchased with them fields and they produced fruit/usufruct, these are yield of the produce/usufruct of the usufruct. And when he said to her, I have no claim against your property and their usufruct alone, he can consume the usufruct of the usufruct , according to the words of Rabbi Yehuda, he did not remove himself other than from the usufruct/produce alone and the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda.

If a husband writes to his wife, “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property”, he may enjoy its usufruct during her lifetime and, when she dies, he is her heir. If so, why might he have written to her, “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property”?
That if she sold it or gave it away her act is valid. The reality behind the scenarios mentioned in this mishnah is probably that the woman or her family would not agree to the marriage unless the husband renounced his rights to her property. Therefore the mishnah lists the effect that different statements will have on his rights. The general principle is that these statements are interpreted as minimally as possible. That is to say, we assume that the husband intended to relinquish as few rights as possible. Therefore, if he states that he has no claim upon her property, he still can benefit from the usufruct and he still inherits her. The only thing that he relinquishes is his right to prevent her from selling or even giving away her property.

רשב"ג אומר אם מתה יירשנה מפני שמתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה – as it is written (Numbers 27:11): “[If his father had no brothers, you shall assign his property to his nearest relative in his own clan,] and he shall inherit it.” From here [we learn] that the husband inherits his wife, but the final result of the matter is that the inheriting of wife by her husband is not from the Torah, but rather from the Rabbis, and the Biblical verse is a mere support, but nevertheless, the Halakha is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel not because it makes a condition against what is written in the Torah, but rather because the Sages made it stringent measure for the protection of the law (i.e., the Written Torah).

If he wrote, “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property and upon their produce”, he may not enjoy their usufruct during her lifetime but, when she dies, he inherits her. Rabbi Judah says: he may in all cases enjoy the usufruct from the usufruct unless he wrote to her: “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property and upon its produce and the produce of its produce and so on without end.” In this case, the husband specifically relinquishes his claim on the usufruct from her property. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, he can no longer benefit from the usufruct, but he does inherit her property when she dies. Rabbi Judah interprets his statement even more minimally; while he cannot use the produce itself, he may sell the produce and that which he buys from it is his.

If he wrote, “I have no claim whatsoever upon your property, its produce and the produce of its produce during your lifetime and after your death”, he may neither enjoy it produce during her lifetime nor does he inherit her when she dies. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: when she dies he inherits her because [by his declaration] he is making a condition which is contrary to what is written in the Torah and whenever a man makes a condition which is contrary to what is written in the Torah, his condition is null and void. In this case, the husband specifies that he has no claim on his wife’s property, and no claim on its produce or on the proceeds obtained from selling the produce, neither while she is alive nor after she dies. With this comprehensive statement, the husband now has no rights whatsoever to his wife’s property and does not even inherit her. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel points out a problem with this statement. The Torah mandates that a husband inherits his wife. By making such a stipulation, the husband is actually subverting Torah law. Therefore, according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel, the stipulation is null and void.

ינתנו לכושל שבהן – there are those who interpret it as one whose promissory note was postdated (which is not disqualified necessarily by the Sages, provided that the lender was willing to accept it – as it presents no opportunity for defrauding other creditors) which is the weakest and with legal disadvantage of them all, for he cannot seize properties for a debt that precede it, and there are those who interpret that is for the Ketubah of a wife and it is called weak, and it is not her manner to return after the property of the dead and to request where he has land like the man. And even tough movables of orphans are not mortgaged to the creditor nor to the Ketubah of a woman, here, where they are not in their domain, he leaves them, Rabbi Tarfon holds that we remove them from the hand of the borrower or from the hand of the one holding the deposit and give them to creditor and for the Ketubah.

Introduction This remainder of this chapter deals with the wife’s ability to collect her ketubah from the husband’s estate. In general, inheritors are not liable to pay their father’s debts from movable property which they inherited. Only land is liable for these debts. Our mishnah deals with the specific case where the inheritors have not yet collected what was owed to their father.

ינתנו ליורשים – possession does not take effect.

A man died and left a wife, a creditor, and heirs and he also had a deposit or a loan in the possession of others: Rabbi Tarfon says: It shall be given to the one who is under the greatest disadvantage. Rabbi Akiva says: We do not show mercy in a matter of law. Rather it shall be given to the heirs, for whereas all the others must take an oath the heirs need not take any oath. The husband dies while having a deposit or a loan in the possession of others. The question is: to whom is this money repaid, to the widow, to the creditor or to the inheritors? According to Rabbi Tarfon the weakest among the parties is the one who receives the money. The Talmud offers two explanations for who is the weakest. According to one interpretation, the weakest is the one whose proof that s/he is owed a debt is weakest. According to another interpretation, the weakest refers to the woman’s ketubah, for it is not easy for a woman to chase down those who owe her the ketubah. In any case, Rabbi Tarfon agrees that although in general movable property is not used to pay off a deceased person’s debt, in this case, since the inheritors had not yet received the money, it is used. Rabbi Akiva categorically rejects Rabbi Tarfon’s application of mercy to a matter of law. Law must operate blindly, ignoring who is weak and who is strong. The law must decide in favor of the one whose claim is the strongest. According to Rabbi Akiva, in our case this is the inheritors. Their case is strongest for they inherit their father’s estate without taking an oath, whereas debtors and widows must swear that they have not already received their due before they collect.

שכולן צריכין שבועה – for a person who comes to collect from the property of orphans, he should not collect without an oath, and all the while that they did not take an oath, we don’t known if they have anything against him; therefore, when the dead person dies, he orphans took possession of them and they are in their domain.

כל הקודם בהם זכה – if the heirs came earlier, they take possession and we don’t remove it from their hands for orphans’ movables are not mortgaged to a creditor or for a Ketubah. If one of them – the wife or the lender he takes possession, [for Rabbi] Tarfon holds that taking possession after death has legal effect.

Introduction Our mishnah is similar to yesterday’s mishnah. It again deals with a case of a man who dies and leaves a widow who wishes to collect her ketubah, a creditor who wishes to collect a debt and inheritors who want their rightful inheritance. The difference is that whereas yesterday’s mishnah dealt with money that was still in the hands of others at the time of the husband’s death, our mishnah deals with a case where the husband leaves produce already detached from the ground. As I mentioned yesterday, such produce has the status of movable property, from which debts and ketuboth are not generally collectable. As an addendum, we should note that in the geonic period, the period right after the completion of the Talmud, which lasted from around 600 to 1100 C.E., the rabbis revised the Talmudic law and stated that a woman and a creditor can collect their debts from movable property. The reason for such a change was that their society was not based on the ownership of real estate, as society was to a much larger extent in the land of Israel in the 3rd century.

זכתה אשה יותר על כתובתה – if she got there ealier and took hold of it and it has more than [the value of] the Ketubah or the creditor arrived first and seized it and there is more than the lien [due him].

If he left produce that was detached from the ground, whoever seizes it first acquires possession. If the husband left produce detached from the ground, the first of the collectors to seize it acquires it. This is because no one has an absolute right greater than the other and therefore their seizing of the property is effective. We should note that although this idea sounds foreign to us, perhaps even like vigilantism, it is basically similar to the idea that the person who does not have possession has the burden of proof. If for instance the wife takes the property, she has possession and now the others would have to prove that it is not rightfully hers. Since they cannot prove this, she keeps the produce. Furthermore, since it is unclear who is the rightful owner, the court would not be able to make any ruling even if the parties had asked its advice.

המותר – should be given to the weakest. This owner of the document whose had is at a disadvantage, if it were to come into the hand of the orphans, furthermore, he cannot remove it from them – neither the wife nor the creditor. But nowadays, we have the practice in all Jewish courts throughout Israel that possessions of the orphans are mortgaged to the creditor; a person who died and left movables, and he had on them a creditor and the Ketubah of a wife , all who comes first gained possession, whether the creditor was early or whether the creditor was later, for there is no antecedent with regard to movables. But if none of them came early, they divide the movables between themselves , as we state further on in Chapter [Ten, Mishnah 2) “He who was married.”

If the wife took possession of more than the amount of her ketubah, or a creditor of more than the value of his debt, the balance: Rabbi Tarfon says: it should be given to the one who is under the greatest disadvantage. Rabbi Akiva says: we do not show mercy in a matter of law. Rather it shall be given to the heirs, for whereas all the others must take an oath the heirs need not take any oath. Despite the fact that anyone can seize the property, the widow and the creditor cannot take more than they are owed. If they do, Rabbi Tarfon rules that the remainder of the money goes to the weaker of the remaining two parties. According to the Talmud this means that it would go to the woman if the creditor had seized the money or to the creditor if the woman seized the money. Rabbi Akiva rules, as he did in the above mishnah, that in cases of law no mercy is shown. Therefore, the inheritors take the remainder for they collect their inheritance without an oath, whereas creditors and widows must swear an oath before they can collect their respective debts.

חנונית – to sell and to buy in the store

Introduction We learned in Shevuoth 7:8: “And these take an oath though there is no [definite] claim: partners, tenants, guardians, the wife who transacts the affairs in the house, and the son of the house.” In other words in these cases one person can make another person swear an oath that he has not misused any of his property. Our mishnah further clarifies when a husband can make his wife take an oath. A wife’s managing her husband’s affairs would not have been uncommon in Mishnaic society, especially if many of the men were merchants. Merchants are often away from home for long periods and while they are gone, it is typically the woman who manages the affairs of the houses.

אפוטרופא – to deal with his money and engage in business.

If a husband set up his wife as a shopkeeper or appointed her guardian he may impose upon her an oath whenever he wants. If a husband appointed his wife to sell his produce in a store or to otherwise be a guardian over his property, he may at any time he wishes make her swear an oath that she has not acted improperly with his property. This is not because women are inherently not trustworthy, but rather because a person in such a situation may take certain licenses with property that is not his/hers. The fact that the husband, or in cases of partnership a partner, can make the other party take an oath, would probably have acted as a deterrent, preventing the person managing the funds from acting wrongly. Unfortunately, the problem of people taking license with money or property which they have been appointed to guard over, is still a major problem in our society. According to the Talmud, a husband who did not appoint his wife as a shopkeeper or guardian cannot make her swear an oath over normal things that happen in the house. Allowing him to do so, and to be so tight-fisted with his property, would not help peace reign over their house.

משביעה כל זמן שירצה – an oath like that of the Torah on a claim of perhaps, and he is able to assess her that she did not make a fraudulent representation/overcharging regarding her spindle and her dough.

Rabbi Eliezer said: even in respect of her spindle and her dough. This last point is disputed by Rabbi Eliezer. He holds that a husband can make his wife take an oath that she did not take for personal use any of the wool that he provided for her spindle nor from the dough that she uses for baking. Rabbi Eliezer evidently does not think that this will lead to a disruption of the household harmony, or he does not care.

... but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eliezer.

משביע הוא את יורשיה – if he divorced her or she died and her heirs claim from him her Ketubah, they take the oath of heirs that she did not deposit anything with us at the time of death nor say to us anything before then and we did not find among her documents that the document of her Ketubah had been paid off.

Introduction In mishnah one we learned that a husband can renounce his right to use his wife’s property. After learning in mishnah four that a husband has a right to make his wife swear that she did not misuse his property, our mishnah teaches that a husband may renounce this right as well. We can easily imagine a scenario in which a woman says that she will not agree to be a storekeeper for her husband if he is so distrusting of her that he will make her take an oath. Therefore, perhaps as a precondition to her doing certain work for him, she makes him renounce this right. As in mishnah one, the rabbis minimally interpret each of these sayings. In each case the court would assume that the husband renounced the minimal amount of rights that can be interpreted as being referred to in his statement. For him to fully renounce his or his inheritors’ ability to make her swear an oath, he must be very explicit in his statement.

ואת הבאים ברשותה – if she sold her Ketubah to others and she was divorced or died and the purchaser of mortgaged property claim her Ketubah, even they are bound to swear the oath of heirs.

If he (the wrote to her (his, “I have no claim upon you for either a vow or an oath”, he cannot make her swear an oath. However, he may make her heirs and upon those who have done business with her swear an oath. If he states that he will not make her take an oath, he may still make her inheritors or others who may have bought her ketubah or to whom she may have sold her ketubah take an oath or a vow. The case of her inheritors or those who bought her ketubah can occur if he divorced his wife and then she died and these people wish to collect her ketubah. The husband may make them swear that the woman did not give them any part of her ketubah that she had already collected, nor did she mention that she had already collected her ketubah, nor did they find among her papers documentation that she had received her ketubah. If they can swear that all of this is true, then they may collect the woman’s ketubah.

אבל יורשיו משביעין אותה – if she became a widow and he or her heirs collect money from the orphans, they require an oath, for they are not exempted other than from him, if she collects her Ketubah settlement during his lifetime.

[If he wrote,] “I have no claim upon you for either a vow or an oath nor upon your heirs nor upon those who have done business with you”, he may not impose an oath either upon her or upon her heirs or upon those who have done business with you. However his heirs may impose an oath upon her or upon her heirs or upon those who have done business with her. If the husband states that he will not make her swear, nor her inheritors nor those who had business with her, then he can’t make any of them swear. However, his inheritors can make them swear. In other words, if the husband dies, his inheritors can make the wife swear that she had not received her ketubah before she collects from them. If the husband divorces his wife and then she dies and then the husband dies, his inheritors can make the wife’s inheritors or those who might have bought her ketubah swear the same oath we saw above.

לבאין ברשותי – if I sell my property and you come to collect from the bought properties.

[If he wrote] “Neither I nor my heirs nor those who have done business with me shall have any claim upon you or upon your heirs or upon those who have done business with you for either a vow or an oath”, neither he nor his heirs nor those who have done business with him may impose an oath either upon her or upon her heirs or upon those who have done business with her. If the husband writes that even his inheritors or others who have had business with him will not be able to make his wife, her inheritors or those who have had business with her swear an oath, then none of the latter need take an oath.

והלכה מקבר מעלה – this one who exempted her husband from the oath.

Introduction This mishnah refers to a situation where the husband exempted his wife from having to swear an oath and he also stated that his heirs may not make her take such an oath. The mishnah asks whether or not the heirs may make her take an oath about her subsequent guardianship over her dead husband’s property. This situation would arise because typically the widow would continue to live in her husband’s home until she either died or remarried.

לבית אביה – who did not engaged further in property.

If she went from her husband’s grave to her father’s house, or returned to her father-in-law’s house but was not made a guardian, the heirs may not make her swear an oath. If after the death of her husband, she leaves her husband’s house and returns to her father’s house, or when she returns to her husband’s house she does not act as a guardian over his estate, the inheritors cannot make her swear an oath when she collects her ketubah. This is because her husband specifically exempted her from needing to take such an oath. The mishnah additionally informs us that she does not take an oath over the expenses that she incurred while dealing with the burial of her husband, for if she knew that she would have to take an oath, she might not give her husband a proper burial. (We might have thought that since these costs were incurred after his death, she would have to take an oath about her use of the money). In order to ensure respect for the dead, the mishnah teaches that the inheritors may not make her take an oath that she did not take anything for herself while paying for her husband’s funeral.

אין היורשים משביעין אותה – with what she had engaged in between death and the burial for if the heirs are able to cause her to take an oath on this while she needs to bring witnesses in what she is selling and buying for the needs of the burial of the dead, the dead body will be delayed [from being buried] and will be disgraced.

But if she was made a guardian the heirs may make her swear an oath in respect of [her administration] during the subsequent period but not in respect of the past. If she was made a guardian over her husband’s property after his death, then the heirs can make her take an oath about subsequent use of the property but not about past use. The stipulation that her husband made that she should not have to take an oath was only effective over things done in his lifetime and not her management of his affairs after his death. If she was afraid of taking an oath, she could have declined acting as a guardian over the estate.

על העתיד לבוא – she did not delay in her hands at all from the business that was done by the guardian upon him after the burial of her husband and he did not benefit from his exemption, for the property belongs to the orphans.

על שעבר – on the business that was during the lifetime of her husband.

לא תפרע אלא בשבועה – a person who collects payment from his colleague is not exacting to pay attention of what he has collected and this since he was paid in part, it is possible that he was paid in full, and the Rabbis placed upon him an oath in order that he pay special attention.

Introduction Most women are able to collect their ketubah without taking an oath that they did not previously collect. However, some women must first take an oath. This mishnah lists the category of such women and the following mishnah shall explain it more fully. Hence I will largely refrain from commenting until tomorrow’s mishnah.

עד אחד מעיד שהיא פרועה לא תפרע אלא בשבועה – it is the ordinance of the Sages in order to appease the mind of the owner and these oaths, even though they are the ordinance of the Sages, they are not other than like that of the Torah, in seizing an object for all of the oaths that the Sages ordained are like those of the Torah.

A woman who impairs her kethubah is not paid except by an oath. This refers to a woman who admits that she has already received part of her ketubah.

מנכסים משועבדים – because if he would collect from the borrower himself, the borrower would claim: “swear to me that I have not paid you,” we cause him to take an oath and we make a claim because of the mortgaged properties, for perhaps, if you had collected the borrower, he would claim against you: “swear to me that I have not paid you and you require that I should also take an oath now.”

If one witness testifies against her that [her kethubah] has been paid, she is not be paid except by an oath. The husband needs two witnesses in order to prove that his wife has already received her ketubah. One witness is only sufficient to make her swear an oath that she has not.

From the property of orphans, from property with a lien on it and [from the property of] an husband who is not present she is not paid except by an oath. These categories will be explained more fully in tomorrow’s mishnah.

רבי שמעון – This [statement] refers to what is above (see Mishnah 4), referring to the Rabbis who stated that a person sets up his wife as a storekeeper or appointed her as a guardian, he may impose upon her an oath [that she has not misappropriated any of his property any time that he wants, and if he wrote her: “I don’t nor do my heirs have a vow or an oath against you,” the heirs cannot cause her to take an oath. And he comes to dispute and state that whenever she claims her Ketubah, the heirs force her to take an oath and even if he wrote her that neither he nor his heirs have on her a vow or an oath, if she does not claim her Ketubah, the heirs cannot force her to take an oath on being a guardian during the lifetime of her husband, and even if he did not exempt her from the oath, for Rabbi Eliezer and his dispute (even on her spindle and on her dough, they may force her to take an oath) that we stated above (see the end of Mishnah 4), that we force her to take an oath whenever he wants, and the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

Introduction This mishnah explains yesterday’s mishnah, regarding which women must take an oath in order to receive their ketubah. We should note that the mishnah is not making any statement about distrusting women; if so they would not be allowed to take an oath! Rather in general even when a person is trustworthy s/he must sometimes take an oath in order to collect money.

“A woman who impairs her kethubah”: How is this so? If her ketubah was for a thousand zuz and [her husband] said to her, “You have already received your kethubah”, and she says, “I received only a maneh”, she is not paid [the balance] except by an oath. A woman who “impairs her ketubah” is defined as one who has admitted that she has received part of her ketubah. The reason that she must take an oath to recover the rest is that one who pays back a debt is assumed to know more accurately that s/he paid back then someone who is receiving the debt. Therefore, we suspect that she might have forgotten that she did indeed receive the entire ketubah. To ensure that she did not she must take an oath.

“If one witness testifies against her that [her kethubah] has been paid”: How is this so? If her ketubah was for a thousand zuz and [her husband] said to her, “You have already received your ketubah”, and she says, “I have not received it” and one witness testifies against her that [the ketubah] has been paid, she is not paid except by an oath. If one witness testifies that she did receive the whole ketubah, she must take an oath that she did not. This is the same as all cases of a single witness in Jewish law, who is not sufficient to provide full and valid testimony, but is sufficient to make the opposing party swear that what the witness says is not true.

“From property with a lien on it”: How is this so? He had sold his property to others and she seeks to recover payment from the buyers, she is not paid except by an oath. At the point of marriage, the wife’s ketubah creates a lien on all of her husband’s property. If when she comes to collect her ketubah, he has no property, she can recover from anything he might have sold or given away after their marriage. However, she must take an oath to those people who purchased the party that she has not previously collected. This is because the purchasers cannot know whether or not the husband had already paid back the ketubah.

“From the property of orphans”: How is this so? He died and left his estate to his orphans and she seeks to recover payment from the orphans, she is not paid except by an oath. For the same reason, if she collects the ketubah from her husband’s inheritors, she must take an oath.

“An husband who is not present” How is this so? If her husband went to a country beyond the sea and she seeks to recover payment in his absence, she is not paid except by an oath. Finally, if she collects her ketubah when her husband is abroad, for instance he sent her a get, before she collects her ketubah she must take an oath. This is because we are suspicious that since her husband is not there, she might be more brazen and lie. To deter her from lying she must take an oath.

Rabbi Shimon says: whenever she claims her ketubah the heirs may impose an oath upon her but whenever she does not claim her ketubah the heirs can not impose an oath upon her. Rabbi Shimon says that if she has requested her ketubah, the heirs may make her take an oath, even if her husband had said that she would not be subject to an oath. According to Rabbi Shimon, this stipulation does not cause the heirs to lose their right to demand that their father’s wife take an oath about her ketubah. However, if she does not claim her ketubah, and rather prefers to continue to live on his estate (as is her right, as we shall see later in the Mishnah), the heirs cannot make her take an oath even if she was appointed guardian over his estate. Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the halakhah found in mishnayoth four and five, that a husband has a right to make his wife swear an oath if she was appointed guardian or storekeeper.

הוציאה גט ואין עמו כתובה – in a place where they don’t write a Ketubah, and they rely upon the stipulation of the Jewish court.

Introduction This mishnah discusses various issues of a woman’s collecting her ketubah.

גובה כתובתה – for it is a stipulation of the Ketubah is an act of the Jewish court and all acts of the Jewish court are like one that holds a document. And specifically, one that is a Maneh or two hundred [Zuz] is collected, but the supplement has no testimony that she should remove the document of the Ketubah.

If she produced a get without a ketubah, she collects her kethubah. If she comes to the court and brings evidence that she has been divorced, she can collect her ketubah. The court would then make a sign on the get, in order to prevent her from collecting again.

פרוזבול – Hillel ordained Prozbul in order that the seventh year would not cancel [a debt] forhe would transfer his documents to the Jewish court which would collect from the borrower his obligation all the while that he would make a claim against him, for now we do not call him (Deuteronomy 15:2): “he shall not dun [his fellow or kinsman, for the remission proclaimed is of the LORD],” for he does not claim anything but rather, the Jewish court makes a claim against him.

[If she produced her] ketubah without a get, and she says, “My get was lost”, and he says, “My receipt was lost”, and also a creditor who produced a debt document that was unaccompanied by a prosbul, these are not paid back. If however, she brings a ketubah without a get, and the husband claims that he paid the ketubah but lost his receipt, the husband is believed and she cannot recover her ketubah payment. Similarly, if a creditor comes to court with a debt document but has no prosbul, which is a document that allows debts to be collected even after the sabbatical year, and the creditor claims that he had a prosbul and lost it, he is not paid back. The reason is that we suspect that he never wrote a prosbul in the first place.

הרי אלו א יפרעו – we suspect lest her Ketubah [settlement] was already collected, and [regarding Prozbul] the seventh year caused the release from debt.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: from the time of danger a woman collects her ketubah with out a get and a creditor collects [his debt] without a prosbul. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel discusses “the time of danger” usually understood as referring to the Bar-Kochva revolt, which was crushed by the Romans in 135 C.E. From that time and onward it was dangerous for Jews to travel while in possession of a get or a prosbul because the Roman authorities had decreed against the observance of the Jewish religion. Therefore during that time period a woman could collect her ketubah without a get and a creditor could collect his debt without a prosbul.

מן הסכנה – that the heathens decreed against [performance of] the commandments, and they were afraid to keep their Jewish bills of divorce and when she would receive it, she would burn it and similar with their Prozbul documents.

[A woman who produced] two letters of divorce and two ketuboth collects two kethuboth. If she produces two ketuboth and two gittin (the plural of get), all from the same husband, she collects the value of both ketuboth. This is a case where he divorced her and remarried her (this is permitted as long as she doesn’t remarry someone else in-between) and gave her a new ketubah for the second marriage.

Two kethuboth and one get or one kethubah and two gittin, or a kethubah, a get and [evidence of her husband’s] death, she collects one kethubah only, for a man who divorces his wife and then remarries her contracts his second marriage on the condition of the first kethubah. However, if she has two ketuboth and one get, or two gittin and one ketubah, or one of each and proof of her husband’s death, she does not receive two ketuboth. This is because we assume that when he married her a second time, he married her on the condition that she receives only her first ketubah, which was as of yet unpaid. In the case of “two ketuboth” she receives only one for there is an assumption that a husband who writes two ketuboth for his wife only intends on giving her one. Perhaps the second ketubah was to hang as art on their wall!

A minor whose his father had given him in marriage, the ketubah of his wife is valid, since it is on this condition that he kept her as his wife. In this case when the ketubah was written the minor was incapable of obligating himself to incur a debt. However, the ketubah is valid when he reaches majority age for when he continues living with his wife, he is doing so with the intention of paying the ketubah. Although when the ketubah was first written he could not legally obligate himself to pay it, his remaining with his wife after he reaches majority age is interpretable as acceptance of such an obligation.

A convert who converted with his wife, the kethubah remains valid, since it is on this condition that he kept her as his wife. Similarly, a gentile couple who convert, could not have taken on the legal obligation for a ketubah when they were not Jews. However, his remaining with his wife after their conversion does effect his obligation.