## Bava Metzia Daf 17b

###### Bava Metzia 17b:1
[Bava Metzia 17b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/17b:1)

לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. מַאי טַעְמָא? כׇּל מַעֲשֵׂה בֵּית דִּין – כְּמַאן דְּנָקֵיט שְׁטָרָא בִּידֵיהּ דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**he has said nothing.** His claim is not accepted. **What is the reason** that he is not believed? It is because one who is owed **any** money based on **a court enactment is** considered **like one who is holding** a promissory **note in his hand,** against which a claim of repayment is not accepted without supporting evidence.


###### Bava Metzia 17b:2
[Bava Metzia 17b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/17b:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וְלֹא מִשְׁנָתֵינוּ הִיא זוֹ? הוֹצִיאָה גֵּט וְאֵין עִמּוֹ כְּתוּבָּה – גּוֹבָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: But** what are you adding? **Isn’t this** principle stated in **a mishna** (*Ketubot* 88b), which teaches: If a woman **produced a bill of divorce, and there was no accompanying marriage contract, she collects** payment of **her marriage contract?** This is an example of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s principle that a court enactment enables one to collect a debt even without the relevant document.


###### Bava Metzia 17b:3
[Bava Metzia 17b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/17b:3)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי לָאו דְּדַלַּאי לָךְ חַסְפָּא, לָא מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ מַרְגָּנִיתָא תּוּתַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan **said to him:** True, this mishna is a source for my principle; but **had I not lifted up the shard for you, you would not have found a pearl beneath it.** In other words, if Rabbi Yoḥanan had not pointed out the principle, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba would not have realized that it was underlying the ruling of the mishna.


###### Bava Metzia 17b:4
[Bava Metzia 17b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/17b:4)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מַאי מַרְגָּנִיתָא? דִּלְמָא בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין כּוֹתְבִין כְּתוּבָּה עָסְקִינַן, דְּגֵט הַיְינוּ כְּתוּבְּתַהּ. אֲבָל בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁכּוֹתְבִין כְּתוּבָּה, אִי נְקִיטָא כְּתוּבָּה – גָּבְיָא, אִי לָא – לָא גָּבְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: What** qualifies this proof as **a pearl?** It is not a compelling proof, as **perhaps** in the mishna **we are dealing with a place where they do not write a marriage contract, as** in such a place, a woman’s **bill of divorce is** the same as **her marriage contract. But in a place where they do write a marriage contract, if she is holding a marriage contract** then **she collects** payment, and **if not, she does not collect** payment. There is no proof from the mishna in support of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s principle.


###### Bava Metzia 17b:5
[Bava Metzia 17b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/17b:5)

הֲדַר אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָאו מִלְּתָא הִיא דְּאָמְרִי, דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין כּוֹתְבִין כְּתוּבָּה עָסְקִינַן, אֲבָל בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁכּוֹתְבִין כְּתוּבָּה, אִי נְקִיטָא כְּתוּבָּה – גָּבְיָא, אִי לָא – לָא גָּבְיָא, אַלְמָנָה מִן הָאֵירוּסִין בְּמַאי גָּבְיָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye then said: What I said is not correct. As, if it enters your mind** that **we are dealing with a place where they do not write a marriage contract, but in a place where they do write a marriage contract, if she is holding a marriage contract** then **she collects** payment, and **if not she does not collect** payment, then **through what** means **does a widow from** her **betrothal collect** payment of her marriage contract? She has neither a marriage contract nor a bill of divorce.


###### Bava Metzia 17b:6
[Bava Metzia 17b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/17b:6)

בְּעֵדֵי מִיתַת בַּעַל – לִטְעוֹן וְלֵימָא: פְּרַעְתִּיהָ. וְכִי תֵּימָא: הָכִי נָמֵי, אִם כֵּן מָה הוֹעִילוּ חֲכָמִים בְּתַקָּנָתָן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If it is suggested that she can collect payment **by** means of **witnesses to the death of** her **husband, let** the husband’s heir, from whom she is demanding payment, **claim and say: I paid it;** she has no proof that she did not receive the money. **And if you would say** that **indeed,** the heir can claim that he has paid what he owes, **if so, what did the Sages accomplish with their ordinance** that a widow from betrothal receives payment of her marriage contract? The heirs can always exempt themselves.


###### Bava Metzia 17b:7
[Bava Metzia 17b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/17b:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָר קַשִּׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְאַלְמָנָה מִן הָאֵירוּסִין, דְּאִית לַהּ כְּתוּבָּה מְנָא לַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar Kashisha, son of Rav Ḥisda, said to Rav Ashi,** questioning the underlying assumption of Abaye: **And from where do we** derive **that a widow from** her **betrothal has** the right to receive payment of her **marriage contract?**


###### Bava Metzia 17b:8
[Bava Metzia 17b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/17b:8)

אִילֵּימָא מֵהָא דִּתְנַן: נִתְאַרְמְלָה אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשָׁה, בֵּין מִן הָאֵירוּסִין וּבֵין מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין – גּוֹבָה אֶת הַכֹּל, דִּלְמָא הֵיכָא דִּכְתַב לַהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If we say** that this *halakha* is derived **from that which we learned** in a mishna (*Ketubot* 54b): If a woman **became widowed or divorced, whether from betrothal or from marriage, she collects all** that she is entitled to, both the main sum of her marriage contract instituted by the Sages and the additional sum that her husband added; that mishna cannot serve as a source for the *halakha* that a widow from her betrothal has the right to receive payment of her marriage contract. As **perhaps** the mishna is referring to a case **where** the husband **wrote** a marriage contract **for her,** but if he did not, she does not receive any money at all.


###### Bava Metzia 17b:9
[Bava Metzia 17b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/17b:9)

וְכִי תֵּימָא: מַאי לְמֵימְרָא?! לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, דְּאָמַר שֶׁלֹּא כָּתַב לָהּ אֶלָּא עַל מְנָת לְכוֹנְסָהּ אִצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say:** In that case, **what** is the purpose **of stating** this *halakha* since it is obvious that she can collect payment if she has a written contract, then one could respond that it is stated **to exclude** the opinion **of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who says** that a widow from betrothal does not receive that which the husband committed to pay in the marriage contract, **as he wrote** the marriage contract **only on the condition** that he would **marry her.** He did not intend to obligate himself in a situation where he died before their marriage. Therefore, it **was necessary for** the mishna to mention that a widow from betrothal who has a written marriage contract collects payment.


###### Bava Metzia 17b:10
[Bava Metzia 17b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/17b:10)

דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי: גּוֹבָה אֶת הַכֹּל. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא דִּכְתַב לַהּ, הַיְינוּ דְּקָא תָּנֵי גּוֹבֶה אֶת הַכֹּל. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ דְּלָא כְּתַב לַהּ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The language of the mishna **is also precise** according to this understanding, **as it teaches: She collects all** that she is entitled to. **Granted, if you say that** the mishna is referring to a case where the husband **wrote her** a marriage contract, **this is** why the mishna **teaches** that **she collects all** that she is entitled to, i.e., even the amount that the husband added to the main sum of the marriage contract. **But if you say that** it is referring a case where **he did not write her** a marriage contract,