Ketubot 56 - August 31, 4 Elul

Today's daf is sponsored by Lisa Lowe Denker in honor of the engagement of Alissa Gold and Alexander Denker. "May the joy and love you have today always fill your life." What is the root of the debate between Rav and Rabbi Natan - whether or not they hold by Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria regarding the ketuba of a betrothed woman - does she receive only the 200/100 zuz, but not the additional amount? In later generations, they also grappled with the question of how to rule in this case. however, the Gemara concludes that we hold like Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria. Ravin asked about a case where they had the wedding but didn't yet have relations, would that be similar to the case of a betrothed woman or not? Rav Ashi asked what if she was a nidda at the time of the wedding and therefore couldn't have relations, would that also be similar to the case of a betrothed woman? Rabbi Yehuda said that a woman can write that she received part of her ketuba money, even if she hadn't. Two questions are raised against Rabbi Yehuda. Firstly, his opinion states that one can write a receipt. However, regarding a loan, Rabbi Yehuda doesn't allow a receipt to be written if the loan was partially paid off, in case the borrower loses it and the creditor will demand the full amount. Rabbi Yirmia and Abaye each bring a different resolution. The second question is based on an inference from the words of Rabbi Yehuda. He states that the woman can write a document, which presumes that she could not state it orally. Presumably, this is because she would be making a stipulation against what it says in the Torah. However, Rabbi Yehuda himself holds that regarding monetary laws, one can make a stipulation against what it says in the Torah. This is resolved by saying that a ketuba is rabbinic and the rabbis needed to strengthen rabbinic law more than Torah law so that people would take it seriously - therefore he was stricter with rabbinic laws than with Torah laws. Questions are raised against this answer from other sources and in order to resolve them, the answer is limited to specific cases of rabbinic law. Rabbi Meir disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda and doesn't allow one to give a woman a ketuba for less than the requisite amount in the way that Rabbi Yehuda permitted. From the language of Rabbi Meir in the Mishna, the Gemara infers that if he made a condition that was agreed to by the wife, the full ketuba can be collected as the condition is invalid, even though it is still considered a licentious relationship. This is because she thinks that she does not have a full marriage contract and is not protected from easy divorce and therefore views it as not a real marriage. A question is raised against Rabbi Meir who says that one cannot make a condition against what it says in the Torah, which would infer they can make a condition against rabbinic law? The answer is that Rabbi Meir holds that ketuba is a Torah law. A braita is brought which adds the opinion of Rabbi Yosi - that one can stipulate less in the ketuba. A contradiction is raised against him from another braita but a distinction is made between the cases.