Implied question: According to everyone, he is not believed to say that he paid in a place where they do not write a Kesuvah!

Answer: In any case, he does not pay until she returns the Get to him or tears it, since he can come to a loss if it the Get remains intact in her hand, for tomorrow (i.e. afterwards) she will collect a second time, and he cannot say "I did not divorce you", and also he cannot say "I paid you."

Question: They should write a receipt!

Answer #1: He holds that we do not write a receipt.

Answer #2: If Shmuel does not hold like R. Yochanan, who says that his words have no effect, if she does not show a real Get, he is believed to say "I paid you", even in a place where they do not write [Kesuvos];

The Get is in place of the Kesuvah, for so Abaye wanted to say there in Bava Metzi'a (17b).

Explanation (cont.): "[She shows a] Kesuvah, and there is no Get with it. She says "I lost my Get, and it was not torn", and he says "my receipt was lost, and she already collected her Kesuvah through a Get, and it was torn, and I had a receipt lest she return to collect again [from my heirs] after [my] death, and she [will claim that she] was widowed.

Similarly, he could have claimed that he did not pay her yet. In any case, he can say "I will not pay until she returns the Get and tears it."

Explanation (cont.): From the time of danger and onwards, and woman collects without a Get, as long as she has witnesses of divorce, so there is no Migo [for him to say that he never divorced her].

Support #1: This is why the Gemara asked only against Rav. According to Shmuel, we discuss when there are witnesses of divorce. The Mishnah is fine.

Support #2: This is how Abaye initially explained our Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a (17a), and at the end he concluded like R. Yochanan, and establishes it in a place where they write;

He explains like I explained according to R. Yochanan, that "she showed a Get" refers to witnesses of a Get.

Question: In Bava Basra (171b) it connotes that Abaye holds that we do not write a receipt!

Abaye said "if [the borrower] lost his receipt, will [the lender collect again, and] eat and rejoice?!

If so, why does she collect her Kesuvah? He can come to a loss through the Get and Kesuvah remaining in her hand, like I explained!

Answer: Abaye establishes [our Mishnah] when there are witnesses that the Kesuvah was burned;

He prefers to establish it in a place where they write and it was burned, than to establish it in a place where they do not write, since it taught "a Kesuvah, and there is no Get with it";

It is difficult to him to say that he wrote [a Kesuvah] and deviated from the custom.

Therefore she collects properly just with witnesses of the Get.

Implied question: The Get remains in her hand! (He might lose through this!)

Answer #1: This is a case when it is impossible, and we write a receipt. She can say "I need [the Get] in order to [re]marry.

Abaye does not hold that we tear [the Get] and write on the back [that the tear just shows that the Kesuvah was paid, but not that the Get is invalid], like it says there.

Answer #2: After [Abaye] heard from Rava, and [Rava] answered "yes! "The borrower is a slave to the lender", he accepted it and held that we write a receipt.

Implied question: A Mishnah in Sotah (7b) says that if she said "I am Teme'ah (forbidden to you, due to Zenus)", she is Shoveres (writes a receipt for) her Kesuvah and leaves (he divorces her);

The Gemara said "this shows that we write a receipt", and Abaye [rejected this, and said] "the text should say "we tear [her Kesuvah]!"

Answer: This is not because Abaye holds that we do not write a receipt. Rather, he rejects that from here, we cannot bring a proof.

Support: Rava, who explicitly holds in Bava Basra (171b) that we write a receipt, also rejected [the proof] there in Sotah, and established it in a place where they do not write Kesuvos.

Question: The Sugya there is difficult! What was the question "this shows that we write a receipt"? There, you are forced to say that he needs a receipt, for he does not pay to her anything, for she forfeited her Kesuvah, and it is impossible to force her to return it [e.g. if she says that she lost it]!

Answer: There, we infer from that it taught "she is Shoveres", and did not teach "she goes out without a Kesuvah". This implies that normally, we write [a receipt].

First Opinion: Rashi explains that we do not write a receipt [and force the borrower to pay and accept the receipt, when the lender cannot find the document], like it says in Bava Basra (171b).

Question (Ri): Just the contrary, the Gemara there connotes that we hold that we do write receipts, for it says there "nowadays that we write receipts etc." Since the Stam Gemara concludes like this, this connotes that this is the Halachah.

Second Opinion (Ri): Our Gemara says that our Mishnah implies that we write receipts, and this is difficult for the opinion there [in Bava Basra] that holds that we do not write!

Implied question: The Gemara could have deduced this from the Seifa, in which [the ex-husband] says that he lost his receipt! (This implies that they wrote receipts.)

Answer #1: Perhaps they did not obligate him to pay and accept a receipt, but he went beyond the letter of the law (and paid and accepted a receipt).

Answer #2: (Indeed, we could deduce from the Seifa.) The style of the Gemara is to deduce from the Reisha as much as possible.

Question: Now that the Gemara thinks that we discuss a place where a Kesuvah is written (they do not just rely on Beis Din's stipulation), how can it explain our Mishnah? Why can a woman collect her Kesuvah through presenting a Get without a Kesuvah?

Answer: The Gemara explains like Rebbi Yochanan (that one cannot claim that he is exempt from an act of Beis Din without proof.)

Explanation: Our Mishnah discusses a case in which she brought proof that he did not write for her a Kesuvah.

Question: Since the Mishnah discusses a place where a Kesuvah is generally written, why don't we suspect that perhaps afterwards he wrote for her a Kesuvah? The Gemara had such a concern above (16b)!

It establishes the Beraisa "if she lost her Kesuvah or her Kesuvah was burned" to be when there were witnesses that the Kesuvah was burned, and in a place where a Kesuvah is not normally written.

This implies that in a place where they write a Kesuvah, she does not collect without a Kesuvah, for we suspect lest he wrote for her another Kesuvah [afterwards]!

Answer: There, he already wrote for her a Kesuvah at the time of Nisu'in, and it burned, so we suspect lest he wrote for her another;

However, here she brought proof that he did not write for her at the time of Nisu'in. There is no reason to suspect that he later wrote for her, even in a place where they write.

Explanation: [According to Rav,] our Mishnah applies both in a place where the custom is to write a Kesuvah, and a place where they do not write.

Question (Rashba): Rav said in Bava Basra (171b) that we do not write receipts;

Accordingly, if a woman would produce a Get without a Kesuvah, she should not even collect the standard 100 [Zuz for a widow] or 200 [for a Besulah], until she returns to him the Kesuvah document!

He could lose if the Kesuvah stays in her hands, when [he dies and] she becomes a "widow," she will collect [from his heirs] a second time 100 or 200 through witnesses of death, since she holds the Kesuvah document.

When Rav said that [if she presents] a Kesuvah [without a Get] she does not collect the Ikar (primary amount, i.e. 100 or 200, only additions to the Kesuvah), this is only regarding a divorcee who should have a Get. However, how will a widow collect the Ikar, if not through the Kesuvah [document alone? She never received a Get!]

Beis Din might not know that she was divorced. The Gemara's answer below (89b) that [a widow collects her Kesuvah only when we know that until death] she was living with her husband, is not the conclusion.

Answer: If we say that according to Rav that even without holding a Kesuvah, she can collect the Ikar even through witnesses of death, this is fine. (He does not lose through her keeping the Kesuvah document. In any case, his heirs must guard a receipt or the Kesuvah to prevent her from collecting again after death. All agree that when there is no alternative, we write a receipt.)

Observation: Also Rebbi Yochanan explains like this, like I explained above (88b, DH "Hotzi'ah").

Question: Rav Hamnuna taught that a woman who told her husband [in front of Beis Din] "you divorced me" is believed;

Rebbi Yochanan holds like Rav Hamnuna above (22b) and in Gitin (64a). (If so, he has no Migo to say that he never divorced her, for she claims that he did.)

Answer: She is only believed when she does not claim her Kesuvah. However, if she claims her Kesuvah. Perhaps she says so due to greed (to collect the Kesuvah).

Support: We say like this in Yevamos (117a). If a woman comes to Beis Din and says "my husband died. Permit me 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.]

If she says "give to me my Kesuvah", we do not even permit her to remarry, for she came with intent for the Kesuvah [and we suspect lest she lies].

Question: Why is this a Migu? If he would say "I did not divorce you", he would be obligated to supply her food and clothing. Now that he claims that he [divorced and] paid [the Kesuvah], he [totally] exempts himself! (A Migo must be no worse than what he actually claimed.)

Answer: Even if he would say "I did not divorce you", he is exempt from food and clothing. This is like one who claims wheat, and the defendant admits that he owes barley. We hold that he is exempt (Shevuos 38b. Here, she claims that he divorced her, so she admits that he does not owe to her food and clothing.)

Question: Below (107b) we say if a woman went overseas with her husband, and returned and said that he divorced her, she is fed and clothed from his estate up to the value of her Kesuvah. (If she is still married, she is entitled to support. If she was divorced, she is entitled to her Kesuvah.)

We should suspect lest her husband would have claimed "I did not divorce you", and this is like one who claims wheat, and the other admits to barley, and he is exempt!

Answer: We can differentiate. Perhaps if he came, he would admit to her words [that he divorced her. Therefore, she is supported from his estate until he contradicts her.]

Observation: The Gemara could have asked this also against Shmuel, regarding a place where the custom is not to write a Kesuvah.

Question: We need also "if he dies, she collects her Kesuvah"! Above (53a), we deduced from this that an Arus need not bury his deceased fiancee! (Why does the Gemara say that it was merely taught along with "if she died..."?)

Answer: It could have taught "if she dies, he need not bury her." Our Gemara says that "she collects her Kesuvah" was not needed.