Mishnayos Kesuvos Perek 9 Mishnah 9

In a case where a woman produced a bill of divorce and it was unaccompanied by a marriage contract, and she demands that her husband pay her marriage contract, she collects payment of her marriage contract, and he cannot claim that he already paid it. If she produced a marriage contract, and it was unaccompanied by a bill of divorce, and she says: My bill of divorce was lost, and he says: Just as your bill of divorce was lost, so too my receipt for the payment of your marriage contract was lost; and likewise, in a case of a creditor who produced a promissory note after the Sabbatical Year, unaccompanied by a document that prevents the Sabbatical Year from forgiving an outstanding debt [prosbol], and demanded payment of the debt, these debts may not be collected. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: From the time of danger and onward, after the ruling authorities banned the performance of mitzvot, people would destroy a bill of divorce or a prosbol immediately after they were signed, a woman collects payment of her marriage contract without a bill of divorce, and a creditor collects debts owed to him without a prosbol. The assumption is that due to the circumstances these documents were written but were not preserved. If a woman had two bills of divorce and two marriage contracts as a result of her divorce and remarriage to the same man, the fact that she is in possession of these documents proves that she was never paid for her first marriage contract, and she collects two marriage contracts. If she was in possession of two marriage contracts and only one bill of divorce; or if she had one marriage contract and two bills of divorce; or if she had a marriage contract, a bill of divorce, and witnesses to her husband’s death after their remarriage, she collects payment of only one marriage contract. This is because there is a presumption that one who divorces his wife and remarries her, remarries her with the intention of using her first marriage contract, and she agrees that she collects payment of only the original document. This is the presumption, unless he wrote another marriage contract for her. In the case of a minor who was married off by his father, the wife’s marriage contract that the minor wrote is valid even after the husband comes of age. He cannot excuse himself by saying that it was drafted when he was a minor, as it is on this condition, the terms of this marriage contract, that he maintained her as his wife upon his maturity. Similarly, in the case of a convert whose wife converted with him, the marriage contract that she had as a gentile is valid, for on this condition he maintained her as his wife.

הוֹצִיאָה גֵט וְאֵין עִמּוֹ כְתֻבָּה, גּוֹבָה כְתֻבָּתָהּ. כְּתֻבָּה וְאֵין עִמָּהּ גֵּט, הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת אָבַד גִּטִּי וְהוּא אוֹמֵר אָבַד שׁוֹבְרִי, וְכֵן בַּעַל חוֹב שֶׁהוֹצִיא שְׁטָר חוֹב וְאֵין עִמּוֹ פְרוֹזְבּוּל, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ לֹא יִפָּרֵעוּ. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, מִן הַסַּכָּנָה וְאֵילָךְ, אִשָּׁה גוֹבָה כְתֻבָּתָהּ שֶׁלֹּא בְגֵט, וּבַעַל חוֹב גּוֹבֶה שֶׁלֹּא בִפְרוֹזְבּוּל. שְׁנֵי גִטִּין וּשְׁתֵּי כְתֻבּוֹת, גּוֹבָה שְׁתֵּי כְתֻבּוֹת. שְׁתֵּי כְתֻבּוֹת וְגֵט אֶחָד, אוֹ כְתֻבָּה וּשְׁנֵי גִטִּין, אוֹ כְתֻבָּה וְגֵט וּמִיתָה, אֵינָהּ גּוֹבָה אֶלָּא כְתֻבָּה אַחַת, שֶׁהַמְגָרֵשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְהֶחֱזִירָהּ, עַל מְנָת כְּתֻבָּה הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מַחֲזִירָהּ. קָטָן שֶׁהִשִּׂיאוֹ אָבִיו, כְּתֻבָּתָהּ קַיֶּמֶת, שֶׁעַל מְנָת כֵּן קִיְּמָהּ. גֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיֵּר וְאִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ, כְּתֻבָּתָהּ קַיֶּמֶת, שֶׁעַל מְנָת כֵּן קִיְּמָהּ: